Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COTTON INDUSTRY WAR MEMORIAL TRUST BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for giving effect to a Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of —

(i) any sums payable by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by way of contribution to the expenses of the International Civil Aviation Organisation under the said Convention;
(ii) such expenses of any delegate, representative or nominee of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom appointed for any purposes connected With the said Convention as may be approved by the Treasury;
(iii) any expenses incurred by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the purposes of Chapter XV of the said Convention (which relates to the provision of airports and other air navigation facilities); and
(iv) any other expenses incurred by a government department by reason of the said Act; and

(b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of—

(i) all sums received by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by way of repayment of expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Chapter XV; and
(ii) all sums received by way of fees paid under any Order in Council under the said Act other than fees which, under an order made under section two of the Air

Navigation Act, 1936, are paid to any body to whom functions of the Minister of Civil Aviation are delegated by virtue of the order."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I should like, if I may, to ask the Government two questions on this. I think we are entitled to have some idea of what sub-paragraph (a, i) means, and I should also like an explanation of paragraph (b), items (i) and (ii). I should like to know what the amounts are which will be required for the payments and expenses and how we are likely to get the money back under that paragraph. I imagine it will be from people travelling by those lines, but we are entitled to have answers to these two questions which would I am sure, satisfy many hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The Financial Resolution is required in order to meet the dues which may be required from this country by the international organisation for development of services in States who are unable to develop their own. The repayments to the Treasury are in regard to services which may be rendered by this country and for which we may obtain repayment, perhaps at a later date, from States which decide that they will stand their own expenses.

Mr. C. Williams: I did ask the amounts.

Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid I cannot give those figures now, but I will do so later on.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to give effect to Chicago Convention and regulate air navigation.)

11.9 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the end, to insert:
and for permitting in connection with air navigation, subject to such conditions as appear to His Majesty in Council to be requisite or expedient for the protection of the


revenue, the importation of goods into the United Kingdom without payment of duty;
This Amendment is in connection with the financial provisions, and Members of the Committee will note that it is already printed in the Bill in heavy type and underlined. As it is a Financial provision it was omitted from the consideration in another place to avoid any question of Privilege.

Mr. Charles Williams: In this connection, may I ask what is the precise meaning of the last four words, "without payment of duty"? I feel that we should exercise some discretion in watching the position under this Clause since there might be certain privileged persons coming in without paying duty. It is up to us to see that the Treasury are really doing their duty. Every time a duty is relaxed, it means that ultimately other individuals have to pay more. It is up to us to see that no individuals come into this country without paying the full amount of duty.

Mr. Lindgren: I can assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that people are not likely to be excused. The point is that aircraft may get out of order on various parts of the route. In the case of a foreign operator whose aircraft becomes out of order in this country, he may be required to provide certain spares for it, and it is in connection with these spares that certain facilities are provided as they are specifically for the repair of the aircraft. The regulations are specific, and there is no possibility of bringing in spares to be resold in this country.

Mr. C. Williams: I think I now understand the reasons for this provision. I understand that it is to cover spare parts for aeroplanes in service, and nothing else, and does not apply to individuals. Under these circumstances, I see no harm in it, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While appreciating the necessity for this provision, may I ask if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that there will be reciprocal arrangements for British operators in other countries? I hope it is not to be a one-way traffic.

Mr. Lindgren: I understand that is the intention.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I take it that the limiting words are "in connection with air navigation," and that they prevent this proviso being used for the purposes my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) fears?

Mr. Lindgren: That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: This is a very long and complicated Clause, and before we pass it the Parliamentary Secretary should give us some explanation. This is one of the least easily understood Clauses I have ever read, and for that reason I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation of it. It is also one of the governing Clauses of the Bill.

Mr. Lindgren: I always understood it was the task of the Parliamentary draftsmen to make the language of Clauses clear and beyond any doubt to the average Member of the House of Commons, but whether or not they succeed is another matter. The main provisions of this Bill are, of course, contained in Clause 1. It re-enacts legislation which already exists, and arises from the Paris Convention. The new international organisation which has been set up, which had its first meetings in 1944, and arrived at its conclusions at Chicago, will supersede the Paris Convention. Subsection (1) gives wide general powers. Subsection (2) contains paragraphs (a) to (q), giving specific and detailed powers, which in no way limit the wider powers under Subsection (1). If there are any detailed questions, I shall be only too glad to try and answer them.

Mr. Williams: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain paragraph (k) in regard to the civil air ensign?

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Lindgren: This paragraph gives power to the Minister to make orders in regard to the markings of aircraft, and to prescribe the use of certain insignia or markings to avoid infringements, such as the use of the Royal Air Force insignia by navigators.

Mr. Williams: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the colours of the civil air ensign?

Mr. Lindgren: Those are matters which will be set out in detail in the regulations. This paragraph merely gives power to bring in a regulation, and when regulations are made they will be liable to discussion in the House of Commons.

Mr. Williams: The paragraph states "the civil air ensign," which suggests that it already exists. Could we know what it is?

Mr. Lindgren: I could not give the civil air ensign. It is obvious there is need to regulate certain markings in regard to B.O.A.C. aircraft and various other types of aircraft for identification purposes.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that before this design is decided upon this House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter? I raised a question the other day in regard to the National Coal Board flag, and I was told that it had nothing to do with the House and was a matter for the National Coal Board. We want some assurance that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this matter.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Perhaps I can assist in this matter. The insignia is similar to the Royal Air Force insignia without the roundels. I hope that operators will be allowed to have their own crest and markings on their aircraft.

Mr. Lindgren: That is the purpose of the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Construction of existing Acts and this Act.)

Amendments made: In page 6, line 16, leave out "Section one and Section two," and insert:
Sections one, two and the Section (Nuisance caused by aircraft on aerodromes).
In page 6, line 24, at end, insert:
and any reference in the Air Navigation Acts, 1920 and 1936, or in this Act to the provisions of an Order in Council includes, and shall be deemed always to have included, a reference to the provisions of any regulations made, or directions given, under the Order in Council."—[Mr. Lindgren.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Commencement, and interim and transitional provisions.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 30, leave out, "Sections one and two," and insert:
Sections one, two and the section (Nuisance caused by aircraft on aerodromes)."—[Mr. Lindgren.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Short title, citation, extent and repeal.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, leave out "sections one and two," and insert:
Sections one, two and the section (Nuisance caused by aircraft on aerodromes)."—[Mr. Lindgren.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: This Clause states that the Act will extend to Northern Ireland, and I would like an assurance that there will be no change in the proceeding.

Mr. Lindgren: I understand that the changed wording is desirable because the authority under previous Acts did not make it as clear as was desirable. This is to make existing practice clearer, now we have an opportunity in this legislation.

Mr. Williams: Has it been agreed to by Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extra-territorial operation of laws of Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia.)

It and so far as the provisions of any law made by the legislature of Newfoundland or Southern Rhodesia for the purpose of giving effect to the Chicago Convention, any Annex thereto, or an amendment of the Convention or any Annex thereto, or for any other purposes similar to any of the purposes of the Air Navigation Acts, 1920 and 1936, or of this Act purport to have extra-territorial operation in relation to aircraft registered in Newfoundland or Southern Rhodesia, as the case may be, the said provisions shall be deemed to have such operation.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to make it certain that the Legislatures of Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia have the necessary powers to implement the requirement placed upon them by Section 12 of the Chicago Convention. In effect, that requirement is that they should see that their own operators, that is to say, operators of registered aircraft in their own territories, comply with the law of countries other than their own territories when operating in those countries. There is some doubt, particularly having regard to the wording of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, as to whether, at the moment, they would have power to give extra-territorial effect, as necessary, to their own enactments. This Clause seeks to remove that doubt. It deals with Sections 3 and 10 of the Statute of Westminster. I will not trouble Members with the details and intricacies of those Sections, but I hope the Committee will agree that the Clause does what is required.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the Committee would like me to say how glad we are to see a Law Officer of the Government present today. It is very unusual. At Standing Committees, and on other occasions, we have searched anxiously for a Law Officer, and I now congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman for turning up to give us the benefit of his advice. I would like to ask two questions. First, did Lord Swinton, at Chicago, act on behalf of both the United Kingdom and the Governments of Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia, or did they have separate representatives there, and, if so, were all the decisions which we agreed to agreed by their representatives? Second, is there any precedent for this action? Has any other Bill, since the Statute of Westminster, included a Clause of this kind, or are we now breaking new ground in the same way as the Parliamentary Secretary rather broke new ground, I am sorry to say, a few days ago?

The Solicitor-General: The answer to the question about Lord Swinton is, "Yes." The answer to the question as to whether this is a precedent in point of drafting and structure is "No." If hon. Members will look at Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster they will find that that is in almost exactly the same terms. There is also another precedent in one of the pre-war 1939 Acts.

Mr. C. Williams: I, too, think that we are fortunate to have the Solicitor-General here today. But I wonder why this Clause was not put in when this Bill was first drafted? It refers to Newfoundland and Southern Rhodesia, and I should like to be sure that we shall not be called' upon to pass an amending Act before long for the purpose of including some other Dominion or Colony. It would be unfortunate if we passed this Bill today without that assurance. If research has not been made into this point, perhaps it would be possible for the Government to look at it between now and the Report stage. It having been admitted by the Government that the Bill was not drafted correctly in the beginning, we should now have an assurance that the position of other Dominions and Colonies will be looked into, so that on this vitally important matter we may be re-assured.

The Solicitor-General: It was not thought, when the Bill was first drafted, that there was real doubt about this point, but after it had been in draft the question was raised by representatives of the Dominions themselves, as to whether, on a certain reading of it, doubt might not arise. The new Clause is introduced ex majore cautela as a matter of extra precaution, to make certain that there is no doubt, and to answer the points that were made by the Dominions as to the possible effect of the Bill as it stood. As regards the hon. Member's second point, while one can never foresee what may arise later, I can assure him that it has been carefully considered. He will know, of course, that Newfoundland is in a special position. It was a Dominion under the Statute of Westminster, 1931, and was then placed in a special position by the Newfoundland Act of 1933. Southern Rhodesia, as the hon. Gentleman also knows, is a self-governing Colony, and as these two territories were thought to stand in a separate category it was thought necessary to deal with them apart. So far as we can see, the question cannot possibly rise again in respect of other Dominions.

Mr. Williams: It would be awkward if, during the transition in India, this matter arose there, or if Burma or Ceylon were involved. However, I thank the Solicitor-General for his assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Nuisance caused by aircraft on aerodromes.)

(1) An Order in Council under section one of this Act may provide for regulating the conditions under which noise and vibration may be caused by aircraft on aerodromes and may provide that subsection (2) of this section shall apply to any aerodrome as respects which provision as to noise and vibration caused by aircraft is so made.

(2) No action shall lie in respect of nuisance by reason only of the noise and vibration caused by aircraft on an aerodrome to which this subsection applies by virtue of an Order in Council under section one of this Act, so long as the provisions of any such Order in Council are duly complied with.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause enables Orders in Council to be made which will have the effect of prescribing conditions under which noise can be created on aerodromes, and saying, with regard to any particular aerodrome, that if these conditions are complied with in the case of any aircraft using the aerodrome, no action in nuisance shall lie for any noise created by the aircraft on the aerodrome. Hon. Members will want to look at this Clause carefully to satisfy themselves that it is necessary and in the interests of the community. I will give the reasons which prompted us to introduce it.
As the law stands, the position is roughly this: One has to set aside those aerodromes which are run under Statutory powers, and those which are purely private aerodromes. In the case of private aerodromes, a member of the public desiring to establish a cause of action in nuisance must prove that, in terms of the authorities decided on that point, his comfort was materially interfered with by reason of excessive noise emanating from the aerodrome.
In the case of aerodromes run under statutory authority, the position is rather different. In that case the issue before the courts would be this: Can the aerodrome be used as an aerodrome, and used by aircraft resorting to it, in any way which creates less noise than was in fact created when the particular complaint arose. The onus would be on the authority running the aerodrome—the statutory authority. That would, as hon.

Members may well conceive, give rise to extremely difficult technical issues on fact. If hon. Members put themselves in the position of a judge, trying to determine as between technical experts, and contrary experts, whether, in a particular case, on account of a different engine, design of engine, or a different gadget on the engine, it would have been possible to reduce the noise without interfering with the necessary safety precautions, and unduly hampering the use of the aerodrome for the purposes of traffic, they would see that it would give rise to difficult technical questions for the courts to decide. The courts already decide such technical questions in patent actions. At the same time, it was felt that there may be considerable diversity of opinion and that a judge might take one view in the case of a particular aerodrome on the technical evidence, and another judge, in the case of another aerodrome, might take on different technical evidence a different view, and it would be difficult to get unanimity of decision. That might have unfortunate consequences.
Take the case of an aerodrome against which an action had succeeded. The result might be that there was an injunction preventing the aerodrome being used in that particular way. Supposing an aerodrome was prevented from "revving up" engines before use, that might give rise to the question of having to stint safety precautions. A big transatlantic plane before taking off has, as a safety precaution, to have its engines on for some time. I gather that in the case of a transatlantic plane, the engine has to be almost full on for nearly half an hour. I see that an hon. Member opposite shakes his head, but I gather that is, roughly speaking, the position. If there were a question of an injunction preventing that sort of thing on account of the evidence, which in that particular case seemed convincing to the tribunal trying it, the result might be that an aerodrome used for international transport would be completely put out of action.
Faced with that problem, the Government thought that the sensible thing to do was what they have endeavoured to do in this Clause. They give power to the Minister to say that, with regard to a particular aerodrome, in the case, for example, of "revving up" an engine


this may be done between certain hours and on compliance with this, that, or the other condition in the use of the aerodrome. The Clause then. goes on to say that provided these uniform conditions are complied with, an action in nuisance shall not lie. That crystalises exactly what shall be done. The operator knows exactly his duty—both the operator and the person managing the aerodrome. Everyone knows where he stands about it. It is felt that this is a sensible way to achieve two ends. In the first place, to prevent interference with the comfort of citizens, and, secondly, so that the ordinary operator may know exactly his duty.
Local conditions vary. Some aerodromes may be used as international aerodromes which carry a vast amount of traffic. They may be near populated areas; others may be in less populated areas, and carry much less traffic. Unless there is some uniform standard laid down very serious inconvenience, it was thought by the Government, might result. Under the Chicago Convention certain aerodromes are designated for international use, and it was felt that this would lead to another inconvenience. Supposing that international aircraft were using an aerodrome which was confronted with an injunction, it would not be fair to give them preference over British aircraft; they should all be subject to the same standard. Therefore, the general idea is that there should be this general uniformity of standard. Section 9 of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, already provides the same sort of protection in the case of aircraft in flight. Once that is accepted as a principle, it is more than illogical not to extend that same protection to aircraft when they land or before they take off. It is not much use having protection in flight, unless there can be similar protection before aeroplanes take off or after they land. If hon. Members will consider the consequences that may ensue if there is not some method of systematisation, they will no doubt think that this Clause ought to be accepted.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think that this requires some examination from the point of view of the protection of a man who may own a house adjoining an aerodrome. It is his point

of view which I would ask the Committee to consider. I think that the learned Solicitor-General was quite right in saying that there are two different classes. There is the private aerodrome, where the adjoining proprietor has received probably no compensation at all, and where, therefore, he is entitled to object to anything that materially affects his comfort. What is to be the position in that case? In the case of the private aerodrome, is the householder next door to be deprived entirely of all possibility of getting compensation? Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General will deal with that point later on. I presume that it is left entirely to the Government to determine whether it is a case where the public interest requires that this man's rights should be taken away—with compensation no doubt—but will be taken away. Has he any right, and, if so, what, to come forward, and say, "I want this matter looked into. Compensation really will not make this good to me. I am in a special position."? This kind of thing creates a great difficulty.
With regard to the second type of aerodrome, I assume that the adjoining owner has had some chance under the Land Clauses Act to get compensation when the aerodrome was set up, but that measure of compensation was on the footing that the aerodrome would be used so as to create the least possible interference. Now the hon. Gentleman wants to create additional interference without paying additional compensation. If he does not want power to do that, I fail to see the object of the Clause. He does raise rather wider issues than the issue of compensation. The present proposal may be a precedent for other nationalised industries. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that the courts find inquiries difficult they might find them equally difficult with regard to other industries. I have seen many cases in which the court has had an extremely difficult job in determining whether or not a nuisance has been created. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman might apply equally well to the national electrical industry, and it would then be said that it was very awkward not to have uniformity or for the new electrical executive not to know where it stood.
Therefore, we might find in all national industries a movement to withdraw from


the court to the executive the determination of these questions. We must examine with great care proposals which would take away from the court the right to determine these matters and from the subject the right to go to the court for their determination. It may be that the executive would act reasonably and it may be that they will not. There is no control as there is in the case of recourse to the court. I must say that I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was a bit optimistic when he said that everybody would know exactly where they stood after an Order had been pronounced. My experience is that it is only in very rare cases that anybody knows exactly where he stands in regard to an Order in Council, which is usually extremely complicated, confusing and difficult to apply in practice. We should be optimistic if we thought that the ordinary person would know better where he stood under an Order put out by the Executive than he knows under the common law. The difficulties are apt to be great in both cases, I believe, but the mere fact that the Executive have made an Order will not diminish the difficulties substantially. More justification is required than has been given up to date for the proposed new Clause. My purpose in rising was chiefly to see that the adjoining owner is protected and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance on that score. On the wider question, probably some of my hon. Friends will have views to offer.

Air-Commodore Harvey: My right hon. and learned Friend is right in principle on this matter, but he has not touched upon the question of aircraft operators and I suggest that that is an aspect of the matter which requires very careful consideration. The Solicitor-General said that the Minister has to determine the functions of aerodromes. I should have thought that the Minister would have his hands pretty fully occupied at the moment, in developing the Corporations. I think it would be impossible to determine the actual functions of any one aerodrome, even if the State owns the aerodrome. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should reconsider that point.
It is impossible to say in great detail what the functions of an aerodrome will be. It may be that an aeroplane will come in from the Atlantic, or from any

short flight from the Continent and may be kept circling round for an hour and cause a great nuisance to everybody. It is more or less force majeure, and cannot be avoided. With the development of jet turbines there will be a nuisance to many people. This industry must go ahead, and we must be very careful to ensure that no laws are brought in that will retard the industry. I can see the necessity for protecting individuals, nevertheless when new aerodromes are built we must make sure that houses are not built adjacent to them as they have been in the past. That is a point that must be taken care of. Let us keep it open, from the point of view of the operator at the aerodrome.

Mr. Beswick: The point I have in mind is probably the same as that brought forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), but I would like to make sure that I get some kind of explanation from the Solicitor-General. The proposed new Clause does not seek to diminish a nuisance but to legalise it. Very much will depend upon the Order in Council when it is laid before the House. It is quite clear that the Order in Council will have to be watched very closely. Suppose the aircraft operator does nothing beyond the limits laid down by the Order in Council and that he does create a nuisance but it is a legalised nuisance. Nevertheless, material damage to property may be caused. Has the owner of that property a claim for damages from the Minister or from the operator? In my constituency, for example, a new school was built at considerable expense by the Middlesex County Council. It is now practically unusable, because it happens to be on the line of approach of aircraft, and the school is not likely to be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Suppose the building had been privately owned and had suffered physical damage, or rendered unusable by the vibration of aircraft coming in over the top of it. Would the owner of that property have the right to claim compensation, even though the operator was not going beyond the limits of his duties or his rights, as laid down by the Order in Council?

11.45 p.m.

Sir G. Fox: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General whether any other countries are giving a similar concession to our operators. He mentioned that the inclu-


sion of the proposed new Clause would make it fair to our own people and to foreign operators coming into international air ports here. I should like to be told whether he can give us any guidance as to similar concessions in other countries.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to know, on this matter of compensation, whether we can have more information. We have just had a very interesting illustration about a local authority which built a school. It is equally possible that vibration might do terrific damage to buildings in the course of their construction. The Government are asking for very considerable power in this proposed new Clause but there should be protection for the ordinary individual in the matter of damage from vibration. I say very strongly that in the development of this industry we must look after the operator and the operation of the machines. There is every reason why they should have that protection, but commonsense must be applied to the industry, which we all wish to develop.
This is a thoroughly bad Clause, and it is absolutely in accordance with the type of thing which is being done now by the Government. It will mean that for practical purposes we shall not have Parliamentary control. Other people will have the control, and the individual who is aggrieved will not be able as he previously could to lay his grievance before the court It is a very dangerous power to grant. It is all very well to say that the Executive is quite good today. Hon. Members opposite may say that here, but nobody outside would agree with them. Apart from that, it has never been right for this House to trust everything blindly to the Executive of the country. It is a very bad principle, and we should guard against it.
We are being asked to give this power upon the assurances of good intention by the Minister. That is a worthless pledge. The intentions of Ministers may be perfectly good, but their intentions may have no effect. I sometimes have good intentions of attending the House of Commons to do my job, but something goes wrong, and I cannot come here. It is not my fault. It does not mean that I have been betrayed by my good intentions, but that circumstances have been too strong. We should not legislate in accordance with

the good intentions of the Government but should make good laws which the ordinary person can understand.
We are left with an additional Order, or number of Orders, which the unfortunate people have to learn and digest, and in most cases they are not easily digestible or readable. This adds to the burden of the ordinary individual. In the case of a Clause of this kind, which is so in keeping with the outlook of the Government, they were very wise indeed to put up their most attractive representative to put it before the Committee. I have noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman always gets left with the baby, particularly if it is a bad one. The Government did not put this Clause in the original Bill, but they are sneaking it in as a new Clause on a Friday morning. It would be wrong for the Committee to pass it without discussion, as some people would wish. It is one which is fundamentally against the liberty of the subject, and I submit that it should not be accepted.

Mr. McKie: Like the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I view this Clause with considerable misgiving. There is no question but that the Government, in attempting to rush it through on a Friday morning, are attempting to take an advantage. I represent a constituency where there are several airfields. I speak from first-hand knowledge about the nuisance caused by noise and vibration to people who live adjacent to aerodromes. I speak on their behalf this morning, though, of course, I sympathise with the technical points which have been made. The action of pushing a matter like this through the Committee on a Friday morning does not give the public, who are concerned, a full opportunity of knowing what is done. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Torquay stress that point. I speak on behalf of those who live adjacent to aerodromes, whether they are people living in small houses or owners of large properties. Apart from what I am told by friends in my constituency who live near aerodromes, I know myself of the great amount of nuisance caused, during the war years particularly, by noise and vibration. It is true that vibration can do a great deal of harm to property.
I hope the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will say something more to justify


the tact that there should be no appeal because of damage caused by vibration. I think there is a danger of taking advantage of the Committee by pushing through on a Friday morning a new Clause which authorises an Order in Council against which there can be no appeal. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will take into consideration a constituency such as mine which played a great part in our successful air effort during the war. I ask him to say something to reassure those who suffered very considerably both from strain on their nerves, because of excessive noise, and damage to their property by vibration.

The Solicitor-General: I was sorry to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) with regard to this being a Friday. It is not yet twelve o'clock and we have plenty of time in which to discuss this matter if hon. Members wish. The Second Reading of this Bill also took place on a Friday.

Mr. McKie: I said the Government were pushing this new Clause through on a Friday morning when there was a small attendance.

The Solicitor-General: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to push. I have listened patiently to all the arguments put forward and I will do my best to answer them. I do not intend to do any pushing at all. I will endeavour to deal with the perfectly reasonable arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite. I do not suggest that they are not points of real substance. Before he made his speech, the hon. Member for Galloway might have looked a little more carefully at the wording of the new Clause. He said that it was a pity that there was no appeal. There is nothing whatever to prevent a person who thinks he has a cause of action from appealing to the House of Lords. I will explain what I mean. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at the language a little more carefully before he embarks upon a tirade such as he has just delivered. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) also was very indignant about the general nature and scope of the new Clause.
I would ask him whether he has read and considered Section 9 of the Air Navigation Act of 1920. That Act was passed 27 years ago and has been in operation

ever since. In point of fact Section 9 is on the same lines as this Clause. One hon. Member spoke about vibration. I understand, and my limited experience tells me, that vibration is caused primarily by an aircraft in the air much more than it is by an aircraft on the ground. Since 1920 an aircraft in flight has had protection against an action for damage caused by vibration by Section 9 of the Air Navigation Act of I920. It is drafted on very much the same lines:
No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which … is reasonable so long as the provisions of this Act and any Order made thereunder and of the Convention are duly complied with.
That is exactly the same scheme as that which we are now using. It has led to no hardship. It seemed then, and it seems even more so now, to be the only practical way of dealing with this matter.

Mr. Beswick: There is a difference there. In Section 9 of the Act of 1920, a height which is reasonable is laid down according to the international aeronautical rules.

The Solicitor-General: The point I am trying to make is that the aircraft is protected so long as it complies with the provisions of the Order. That is what we say. An action may be brought, if it is considered that the requirements are not complied with, and there can be an appeal to the House of Lords. I accept that one should not, if one can avoid it, take matters away from the province of the courts., We are not doing that more than we feel that we must. What happens? An aerodrome is used and certain requirements are specified. To give random examples, which may or may not be real ones, an aeroplane engine shall not be revved up between certain times or, as I said before, for longer than a certain period in the case of particular types of aircraft. What is said then is that if the Order is made to apply to a particular aerodrome and the aircraft operator complies with these requirements, then, and then only, no action shall be brought. If he does not comply, or if there is a dispute about it, the matter can go straight before the court. It is then for the court to say whether the requirements have been complied with or not. We accept that only to a limited extent. But only to a limited extent are we withdrawing


the question from the courts. We are asking the court to decide not whether there was a nuisance but whether or not certain requirements have been complied with by the operator.
12 noon.
It is in the interests of persons who live in areas adjoining aerodromes that Orders of this sort should be made. A person may feel that his comfort is being interfered with, and if there is no such Order he must take upon himself the onus of proving, in the case of a private aerodrome, that a nuisance has been committed. He has to incur expense and has to call evidence, and his case may not succeed. Take the ordinary case of vibration. It is not always easy to prove as a fact affirmatively in court to the satisfaction of the judge that it is the vibration which has caused the damage and, if so, how much damage has been caused by it. Then he has to persuade the judge as to the terms of the injunction which has to be made, and that he is entitled to the injunction. That is the present position. Once we have the thing crystallised and we know what the operator can do, it is much easier for the person who seeks to do so to establish his case, but it is the court which has to say whether the requirements have been complied with. That is the sensible way of going about it.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J S. C. Reid) contrasted the position of persons living near private aerodromes with those living near public or international aerodromes. I can inform him that the general intention is that Subsection (2) of the new Clause can only be brought into operation in relation to public aerodromes. He said that in the case of a public aerodrome presumably the person affected would already have had some opportunity of getting compensation, but was it not unfair in the case of a private aerodrome. I assure him that as at present advised there is no intention of using this Clause in relation to private aerodromes. Therefore, in the case of a private aerodrome persons who live near it will be in the same position as at the moment. They will be able to go to court and seek to establish a cause of action for nuisance.
In the case of a public aerodrome, it is intended to use this Clause, but I can say that it is not intended—I know that

is always open to the comment that good intentions are not always fulfilled—to let it be possible for aeroplane operators to make as much noise as they like. So far as one can state it in general terms, nothing is being done to lessen the obligation they are under at present to use the aerodrome with as little noise as possible. The justification for this is that we are translating into something more solid the present fluid state of the law as to nuisance which may differ from one court to another and as to which learned judges quite naturally take different views, sometimes on the same evidence but particularly when they have different evidence. There is not always the same set of experts giving evidence. The object is to translate that fluid, position into one where people know where they stand. That was the justification for the Section in the Act of 1920. So far as I am informed there have been no actions of nuisance so far This does not seem to occasion inconvenience.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to jet aircraft and the great increase of traffic in future. It is very difficult to predicate in advance what the state of affairs will be. It will be unfortunate if an unnecessary hindrance is placed in the way of the development of civil aviation. All we are doing is taking power to set out what the position will be by Order, to specify the question which the courts have to decide in the event of dispute arising. We do not want to do more than that—

Air-Commodore Harvey: Why is the Solicitor-General differentiating between State-owned aerodromes and private aerodromes? One may have a private aerodrome making engines, which have to be tested there, for State-owned aircraft.

The Solicitor-General: The reason is that generally speaking in the case of State-owned aerodromes, particularly those which are designated for international use, there will be a much greater volume of traffic than in the case of a private aerodrome which may be owned by a particular firm for experimental purposes or may be remote from populated areas—

Air-Commodore Harvey: I cannot agree at all. We may have a civil flying school, with landings going on continuously all day, training pilots for the Government.

The Solicitor-General: I speak subject to correction by what the hon. and gallant Member has said with regard to private aerodromes, but under the terms of the Clause we are not limited only to applying it to public aerodromes. I simply expressed an intention, and one can always alter an intention. If it appears that a private aerodrome should be included, there is power under the Clause to do so. The Clause can be extended to cover any aerodrome, but the intention is to use it for the international type of aerodrome with a great volume of traffic.
These Orders are subject to negative Resolution, and are in that way subject to control by Parliament. Hon. Members will see how it works from Section 17 of the Act of 1920 which has to be read in relation to the present Bill and provides that Orders in Council have to be submitted to the negative Resolution procedure so that Parliament retains some measure of control as to the contents of the Order.

Sir G. Fox: Would the Solicitor-General reply to my question about reciprocal legislation in other countries? I would also like to ask in relation to noise and vibration if he would explain how this is affected by the advent of jet aircraft. Does blast come under the heading of noise and vibration?

The Solicitor-General: That is a pleasing teaser I should haves thought that the unpleasant effect of the jet engine would manifest itself in the production of vibration and that therefore it would clearly be covered by the word "vibration.' If it did not cause vibration and also did not cause a noise, I do not suppose people would have any complaint against it.
As to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's first question, I stated that one of the objects is that foreign aircraft should not be given any preference over British aircraft. It is very awkward if one designates a port for international user and one finds foreign aircraft using it in a way which they think is consonant with the normal standards and then an injunction is granted against them. They must use the airport in such a way as is reasonable and there must not be unreasonable noise and vibration through its use having regard to the requirements and the practical aspects of aircraft travel. Both are put on the same footing. I cannot answer

the question as to what foreign countries have done about this type of legislation, but I apprehend that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not really want to know having regard to the point that we are not giving foreign aircraft any advantages but on the contrary keeping them at the same level as British aircraft.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The meaning of Subsection (2) seems a little doubtful to me. It reads:
No action shall lie in respect of nuisance by reason only of the noise and vibration caused …
Can a man complain of actual damage caused to his property, supposing that damage is due to vibration?

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General rose—

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait until other points have been put and then he can reply to them together.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman drew a distinction between private and public aerodromes. He was anxious to give some solace to private landowners or tenants living alongside aerodromes. In doing so, of course, he created all sorts of further doubt in our minds as to the way in which this new Clause has been drawn up, and gave further illustrations of the need for the whole matter to be reconsidered before the House hastily passes this Clause. There is not only the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), in regard to flying schools on private aerodromes; there is also the point that if the public aerodromes, largely used by State corporations, are to have greater rights, in the creation of noise and vibration, than private aerodromes, largely used by private operators, it might well work out, in practice, that private operators, anxious to try out new designs, might be prevented from doing so because of the legal consequence of their acts, while public corporations, anxious to do so, would be able to. There might, therefore, be very considerable prejudice to the interests of private operators. That is only in passing, but it is a very definite point, which further illustrates what I said, that the whole matter requires renewed consideration.
We are in a great difficulty. We are anxious to take no action that will hold up rapid and successful aeronautical design and development. On the other hand, we are also anxious not to legalise any sweeping changes in the public's rights under the law of nuisance, and, in particular, on the eve of many experiments in State control, not to give to nationalised industries powers over our fellow citizens which have never been granted before to any private interests, however powerful they might be. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to Section 9 of the 1920 Act. But, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), low flying was excluded from the operation of that Act, and, in so far as aircraft in flight are concerned, everybody knows that the aeroplane passes so rapidly that the nuisance, though tiresome, is very quickly over. "That is a jet machine, that was." We now find quite a different set of affairs. The nuisance on the ground lasts much longer, and we are now, because of the Act of 1920 being called into the argument, to give to aeroplanes on the ground what aircraft in the air were given in 1920.
When we undertook to facilitate the passage of this Bill and to see that today all the remaining stages—Committee, Report and Third Reading—were considered, we did not know, as I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, that there were going to be new Clauses. Had there been no new Clauses we would, of course, have carried out our intention, but, in the light of these new Clauses, I think we are entitled to ask the Government to be good enough to postpone the Report stage, and to think again about this particular Clause. If, for any reason, that course is not practicable, I have a further suggestion to make. This Bill, I think, originating as it did in another place, must, because of these new Clauses, go back to another place. Will the Government, therefore, consider withdrawing this Clause, and thinking again, and then, if they feel that some clarification of the law is needed, introducing another new Clause in another place? If all that the Government want to do is to define what is legal, we will do our utmost to support them, but if, on the other hand, they are now legalising what would otherwise be illegal, then I do not think that we

ought to do it in this hasty fashion. I hope that one or other of these suggestions will commend itself to the Government.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallather: From the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), it is obvious that he does not know anything about the conditions that prevail among the great masses of the people of this country. He said that the Minister was trying to legalise something for nationalised industry which would not be legalised for private operators—nuisance and the noise of aeroplanes. There is a common story on the Clyde about a lad who went out into the country and spent the night there. In the morning, a friend asked him how he had slept. He said, "I did not sleep a wink." When asked the reason for that, he said, "It was so quiet." I wonder whether the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has ever been in a working-class area, and experienced the terrific noises of all kinds which go on all day and all night, and which can be heard miles away? I wonder, from the point of view of nuisance, whether his wife has ever taken up a dustpan in order to sweep up the dirt which the wind has blown into the house from some of the big chimneys? No compensation is given to the working class because of noise and smoke, and nobody has ever suggested that there should be such compensation.
Of course, these aerodromes are not going to be in working-class streets. If they were, we should never hear a word about them. They are going to be in certain parts of the country, among the more superior types of people. While we do not want to bother people more than necessary, it is entirely erroneous to suggest that there is anything in this proposed new Clause that will give an advantage to a nationalised industry. For instance, there is a matter which concerns the Minister of Fuel and Power. If one were driving in a car down Clydeside, one might turn to his companion and say, "What is this awful smell?" If the companion knew, he would say that it was a burning bank. Not only is it a terrible smell, but, when the wind is blowing, all the refuse from it sweeps along the streets and into the houses. If one is walking along the street—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is wandering very far from the matter under discussion.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that consideration must be shown for the nuisance occasioned—

The Chairman: That does not enable an lion. Member to discuss other nuisances, which, I gather, is what the hon. Gentleman is now doing.

Mr. Gallacher: In discussing this Clause, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said that consideration must be given to the people affected by the nuisance, and that, if such consideration was not given, it would mean that a nationalised industry would have an advantage that was never enjoyed by a privately-owned industry. I want him to understand that every conceivable kind of disturbance and nuisance, to sound, sight and smell, has had to be endured by the, working class, and that there has never been any question of compensation because of that. It is only now, because these aerodromes are going to be in the country areas, and when some hon. Members opposite might be affected by the noise, that the question is raised.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member talks about working-class houses around aerodromes. Does he not admit that there are many working-class houses around Renfrew aerodrome, on the Clyde?

Mr. Gallacher: Hon. Members opposite are not concerned about working-class houses. For generations, every conceivable kind of disturbance and nuisance has been imposed on the working-class by industries, out of which hon. Members' opposite have built up their fortunes, and never, at any time, has there been any word about compensation for the workers. Maybe it will do them a little good if they have to suffer a little of what the workers have suffered for so long.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It seems to me, from quite another point of view, that the opposition to this Clause is fractious and unreal. It is perfectly obvious that an aerodrome cannot be run without some noise.

Air-Commodore Harvey: That is what we said.

Mr. Silverman: It is perfectly obvious that noise and vibration may be a nuisance, and, if some alteration of the law is not introduced, anyone affected by that nuisance can get an injunction in the courts to restrain the Government from running any airfield at all. I take it that no one wants that to happen. There has to be some alteration of the law to enable an airfield to exist, in spite of the fact that it may cause some nuisance. We have to examine the Clause that the Government have put down to see whether it introduces a greater alteration of the law than the circumstances require. If we look at it from that point of view, we find that Subsection (1) gives the Government power to make Orders in Council to define the limits of the permitted nuisance. There can be nothing wrong with that. No one would suggest that the limits of permitted nuisance could be defined by the Schedule, or a Clause of the Bill. This is exactly the kind of thing ordinarily done, and best done, by Order in Council, on which the House retains some control. Certainly it is not the same control as under a Bill, but this is not the same kind of thing as is dealt with in a Bill. It is a highly technical matter, and is put into an Order in Council so that the experts of the House can look at it, and object to it if they wish.
The first Subsection having defined what are the limits of permitted infraction of people's rights, which are not to be disturbed by noise or by vibration, the Clause goes on to say in Subsection (2) that, provided those limits are observed, no action shall lie for nuisance in respect of noise or vibration—and nothing else. I apologise for repeating what was said so much better by the Solictor-General, but it seems necessary to repeat it. There is not a word in the Clause to remove any question from the jurisdiction of the courts. It is not true that the Executive will determine whether or not the Order has been infringed. It is not true that the Executive will determine whether private rights have been infringed or not. All that is left to the jurisdiction of the courts. If the Clause is accepted, all we are doing is to alter the rights of persons. If the rights of persons have to be altered, it is in every way better that they should be altered by Parliament than by the courts. That is the proper field for legislation, and it is for the House to


determine what rights shall be taken away, or accorded.
Having defined them, the courts are left completely unfettered to determine, first what were the limits of nuisance permitted by the Order, secondly whether in the particular case complained of those limits have been exceeded, and, thirdly, whether those limits having been exceeded, there is a nuisance created by noise or vibration. Of what are hon. Members opposite complaining? I heard one sound complaint, and I endorse it. If we are going to protect necessary airfields, and prevent their work being stopped by the operation of laws which would stop them unless they were altered, there would be something inequitable in giving that protection to a public airfield, and not to another airfield. But the hon. Member who raised that must fight it out with his own Front Bench, because their arguments were not directed to that point at all. They were saying that this kind of protection could not be afforded to public airfields. Let us agree in principle first, that we must have this industry, and cannot have it unless we give this kind of protection. Then we can consider who ought to benefit, and whether the protection is to be extended to another airfield. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to raise, but we cannot raise it until the principle defined in the Clause has been accepted by the Committee.
This is not a party matter; there is no party politics in it. Everyone says that he is trying to find a workmanlike way of meeting an obvious difficulty. Anyone who looks fair-mindedly at the Clause from that point of view can find nothing to which to object. I do not know why the Front Bench opposite make all these difficulties, unless it is a desire to offer as much fractious opposition as possible, at every possible opportunity. In no other way can be explained the speeches offered by them this morning.
I want to ask a question on this Clause. It seems to be a matter of drafting, which ought to be cleared up. Purely as a matter of drafting, a doubt seems to be created. Suppose a plaintiff proves that his house is falling down, and that nothing has been done outside the permitted limits of the Order in Council under Subsection (1) Can the defendant then say, "It is true your house is falling down, but it is only

because of vibration, and vibration is permitted by the Subsection"? If that is not intended, I think that the words might be looked at again.

Mr. C. Williams: I have listened, as usual, with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I can assure him that I have always assumed, and assumed readily, that when he speaks, he speaks on a matter which he believes should be put in the interests of the people as a whole. I have always assumed that that was what he is doing. As we all grant him that right he should realise that the Opposition also have the right to put their point of view without being accused of being fractious. We express our point of view because we think there is something wrong, as he often believes.
Just now I felt pretty strongly against this Clause, but, having heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I have become absolutely and entirely convinced that the Clause is thoroughly bad. We all know that the nuisances of which he spoke in the industrial areas have gone on, and we are trying to prevent them. Much more should have been done years ago to improve the conditions there. Many of the efforts to control the nuisance from chimneys and such things have been made by our party. I will not develop that further but I think what I have said shows this Clause in a very bad light.
12.30 p.m.
I rise purely out of courtesy to answer a question put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He asked me if I had read a particular Section in the 1920 Act. I must confess that I am afraid that I have not today. It is possible that I am the only person in the Committee at the present time who is responsible in the sense that I was in the House of Commons at that time the Bill was passed, but I feel sure that I justified myself at that time, before the Bill was passed, that it was adequate and right for that date. Am I to suppose that a Bill which was passed all those years ago may not want modernising? We are always hearing of the wicked things that happened in those days but in this case we are assured that that Act is the foundation of all righteousness in this particular matter. I am surprised that the Government should take that point of view about an Act of so long ago,


as that does not quite fit in with some of the things they say.
I saw nothing whatever in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman to lead me to believe that this Clause did not, in the first place, set a thoroughly bad precedent, because it tends to set up much more lax terms for the control of nuisance, etc., for a Government controlled concern than for an individual private concern. It is proposed to give a privilege in competition, and in other ways, to anything controlled by the Government. May I illustrate my point as to what might happen? For a long while there have been a great many precautions, rules and regulations, against railways in relation to sparks from trains setting adjacent fields on fire. We might just as well have the Government coming forward, and saying, when the railways are Government controlled, "We do not need to have all these rules and regulations now that the railways are not privately owned." That is the attitude of the Government. I know that that attitude has been forced on the Law Officer. I know that that is not his outlook, but that he is made to do these things by the hard faced people around him. This is a thoroughly bad Clause. It has been sprung upon the House today, and I suggest, now that the Patronage Secretary is here, that as it is out of line and out of character with the rest of the Bill, and as the Government have had to go right down to the hon. Member for Nelson & Colne to get protection on a matter of this kind, even the Patronage Secretary must realise that there must be something wrong about it. I would only say, in the interests of kindly feeling, that I hope that the Chief Patronage Secretary will not be too severe on the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne for taking up such a lot of time and saying so very little.

Mr. McKie: The hon. and learned Gentleman accused me of not having read the Clause, and went on to give me the information I desired. I am quite satisfied that it the final resort the appellant will have the right of conveying his case to the House of Lords. He has made that clear, and I thank him. He castigated me somewhat too severely, because without his explanation I could not possibly have understood just what the position would be. I would also thank the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) for what he has said to bring out even more fully just what the legal position

will be. At the same time I also share the apprehensions which have just been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), on the whole scope of this Clause. Speaking as a Member for a Scottish constituency, I would also say how much I deplore the speech of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I for one failed completely to follow the logic of his argument.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the hon. Member leave the lovely countryside of Galloway and go to live adjacent to Parkhead Forge?

Mr. McKie: That is quite irrelevant to my remarks. The hon. Member asks me if I would leave the beautiful countryside where I live for Parkhead Forge. I certainly would not. I have the greatest respect for Parkhead Forge, and I know the great work that is done there. The burden of his speech was that nothing had been done in the past to try and safeguard the masses of Great Britain from noise and vibration, and that our, objections to the wording of this new Clause this morning were merely prompted by some desire, on our part, to promote the interests of a small section of the community. I emphatically reject that argument.
I readily sympathise with the point which the hon. Gentleman made as to the conditions and the noise in which large sections of the community—the working class section, which is the phrase the hon. Member likes to use—have had to live for so many years—noise, smell and vibration. With him, I deplore it, but surely he will see that the view we are now expressing is an attempt to do something for all the community. That is the point I want him to bear in mind, and he will see that there was no consistency or logic in the arguments he presented. I deplore the speech which he made, and I thought it was somewhat frivolous.
I would join in the appeal which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has made with regard to the necessity for the Government agreeing to postpone the Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill until they can give further consideration to the Bill in toto and to this Clause in particular. When this Government are pushing through, at a high speed, all this legislation to nationalise and socialise our


industries, it is right that we should be on our guard, particularly to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, in a matter like this. I see that there is some measure of agreement by the hon. Member for West Fife with my remarks on that connection. He is always telling us that the Government, which he supports, are doing something, but are not going fast enough. If that is so I am afraid that some day the Government will be under the threat of having his support add vote in the Division Lobby withdrawn from them because they will not go quickly enough: We must be on our guard to safeguard the interests of the whole community on a matter such as this. I regret that the Patronage Secretary has left the Chamber, but I await the words of the Solicitor-General, or of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has just returned to the Chamber, and who I am glad to see looking remarkably well after his unpleasant experience.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I am entitled to the courtesy of an answer to one or other of the very reasonable suggestions I made. We undertook to facilitate the passage of the Bill when we thought that the Amendments were of a trifling or drafting nature. Then two new Clauses were brought in. We did not know that these Clauses would be introduced when we agreed to all the stages being taken today. It will make friendly arrangements to help Government Business forward more difficult in the future if we do not get some consideration on this occasion. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to give some assurance in regard to one or other of my suggestions.

Mr. Lindgren: I reciprocate the general desire of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). So far as my noble Friend and I are concerned, we appreciate very much the facility which has been given to this Bill in all its stages in the House and in another place, but we are convinced that the Bill might be endangered if this Clause were not included. The argument has not been used so far today, but it could be used, that until the present time there has not been an action by any person on account of nuisance, but that if such an action were taken, it would, in fact, cause a little ill-feeling with some foreign

operators and it would destroy the very purpose of the Bill. It is felt by my noble Friend that this Clause assists the citizens of this country as well as the operators of the airlines. It gives to the operator protection if he complies with the regulations, which will come to the House, which will be discussed by the House and which can be prayed against by the House. The actual airports will be included in the regulations, and there will be different sorts of regulations for different aerodromes, if necessary. They will protect the operator against an action and give protection to the citizen in that he will not have to establish what the nuisance is, because if the regulations are complied with, the question of nuisance will not arise, but if the operator goes outside the regulations, it will be established that a nuisance has been created. In view of the fact that we want this Bill in connection with the bringing into effect of the Chicago Convention as from 31st of this month, I ask the Committee to agree to the new Clause.
It is not our intention to push anything through the House. I ask the Committee to agree to the Clause, which is vital to the operation of the Bill. The Bill might be endangered if the Clause were not included, particularly because, by this discussion today, we have called attention to the possibility of an action arising from nuisance. Some of my hon. and learned Friends having brought to the notice of people that an action might arise because of nuisance, people may think that they can, in fact, bring an action, and will do so.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not think the hon. Gentleman realises what a great departure this Clause is from the recognised practice that has been followed by the House and the courts for a very long time. I do not think anybody would dissent from the view that if it is necessary to limit the rights of private people in the public interest, that should be done—and that is the primary purpose of this Clause —but that it should be done subject to two safeguards. Nothing has been said with regard to those two safeguards which satisfies me, and I do not think that either of them has been adequately considered by the Government. The first is, in the circumstances, the less important; it is that


persons whose rights are to be impaired should have some opportunity of making representations before the matter is done. The second is vitally important; it is that they should have some opportunity of getting compensation. If I understood the Solicitor-General rightly, the position is that, with regard to statutory airports, the Government hope that these regulations will not permit a materially increased degree of vibration and noise, but it is only a hope, and the Solicitor-General qualified his remarks by saying "as far as practicable." Therefore, even he admitted that in some cases, at least, more noise and more vibration would be permitted on statutory airports than has hitherto been permissible. One would think that could be the only meaning of the Solicitor-General's qualification, that there will be cases where it is not practicable to limit the amount of noise and vibration to that which is at present legitimate; otherwise, the words are of no meaning.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely, the point is that at the present time there is no determination whatever as to whether a thing is legitimate or not. Up to the present time there has not been any action. It is feared that action might be taken at any time. It is not a question increasing the possibility of nuisance. Our purpose is to protect the operator against something which is happening legitimately in the course of his duty at the present time. If the protection were not there and the nuisance were established by the court, civil aviation would become impossible.

Mr. Reid: That reinforces my view that the hon. Gentleman does not really follow the point I do not blame him, because it is partly a legal point; but it is the case, of course, that a great deal happens now which legally should not happen, and which could be restrained. It may get a good deal worse. There may be new types of aeroplanes, there may be increased use of old types of aeroplanes, which will greatly increase the amount of disturbance. I do not object to that if in the public interest it is right that it should happen. The industry must develop, but the rights of people who are damaged by the development of the industry must be safeguarded, and it does not seem to have occurred either to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Solicitor-General that there is a case here for compensation,

which they have not put into the Bill. I do not say that there will be orders which will allow more disturbance than the common law does now, but if there is an increase in what the common law allows up to something which the public interest requires, then the person who is damaged by that increase must be paid for his loss.
One of the reasons why I would like to have this Clause taken back and reconsidered is in order that there might be included in the Bill some means whereby a person who proves loss following on the enactment of one of these orders shall be entitled to say to some tribunal, "Before, I had a house which I was able to live in properly, but now I have a house which I cannot live in or which it is very harassing to live in, and if I try to sell it, I can get only a small price for it; and I ought to be paid the difference." It will not be a large sum involved, and it will not happen often. It may not happen more than a dozen or two times altogether. The sum at stake will be nothing compared with the amount of money that is being poured out on civil aviation.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the great heavy boilers that are taken through the streets at night, shaking the houses and causing terrific noise and vibration? They are taken in the middle of the night because they would completely block the traffic in the streets during the day; does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that that should be stopped?

Mr. Reid: I well remember an action in the Court of Session about 20 years ago, which went on for a week on that very question. Sometimes they are stopped and sometimes they are not, but that does not affect this question, which is whether we shall safeguard the owners of houses—sometimes very small houses; they are by no means all rich people, they may include people whose whole means have been invested in their houses—why should they not be entitled to compensation, if they are being hurt by an increase in permissible noise?

Mr. Gallacher: What is a small house?

Mr. Reid: Perhaps we may have a discussion some other time on where the small house ends and the large house begins. Most of the houses affected will


be small, from anything I know of aerodromes, and if that is so probably I shall have the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) with me on the matter. I think this should be looked at when we come to private aerodromes. I agree at once, there is no dispute about this, that there ought to be the same rules all round and development ought not to be hampered, but the case for compensation, as the Solicitor-General has himself admitted, is even stronger in the case of private aerodromes than in the case of statutory aerodromes, and if I have an argument, as I think I have, on the statutory aerodromes, I have an even stronger argument on private aerodromes. I do not want to see any difference between the two types; by all means increase the standard of public disturbance so far as the public interest requires it, but let us see that no injustice is done by it. That is a point that has obviously not occurred to the Parliamentary Secretary or his noble Friend, and it is one which seems to us to require consideration. A week's delay on this Bill would not have any effect at all; it would not endanger the Bill, it is still the early part of the Session; can we not postpone the Report stage, and if necessary recommit the Bill—which could be done by consent—until some provision can be introduced to allow compensation to be given in cases of proved loss?

Air-Commodore Harvey: I have listened to the arguments very carefully and I feel that the Government are making rather heavy weather of this Clause If, as I think the Parliamentary Secretary said, this Bill is largely to protect foreign aircraft operators, I am just as much concerned about our own operators.

Mr. Lindgren: All aircraft operators.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Perhaps engines are being made at Bristol by the Bristol Aircraft Company for State aircraft, and someone may bring an injunction against the Company and they will not be able to run the engines on their own aerodromes. If we are to have this Clause at all it must apply to all licensed aerodromes. In 22 years' flying experience I have never heard of a building damaged by vibration from aircraft. I was once sent by my C.O. down to the convent at Ramsgate to pacify the Mother Superior, who was complaining about aeroplanes at Manston, that there was

no damage done to her building. On all aerodromes the public must be protected from the noise of engines running up, and I ask the learned Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter. Otherwise I think we are in for trouble.

Mr. Marples: I have not had the advantage of going to Ramsgate to see the Mother Superior of the convent, but I have been in my place during most of this Debate. I would not have intervened had it not been for the extraordinary remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. His argument, as I understood it—and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—is this. So far, no legal action has been brought to test the case of noise and vibration, therefore he and his noble Friend consider that one may be brought at any moment and, in order to avoid that, they must alter the law quickly. I do not want this to develop into a lawyers' holiday, and it is not likely to now because the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is no longer in his place. But as a non-legal Member of this House, I honestly believe that it is a most extraordinary argument to use, that the legal rights of a citizen shall be taken away hurriedly before he has time to bring an action in the courts. If a citizen has been wronged under existing law and is entitled to compensation, surely he ought to be able to bring an action and if necessary get the compensation? I do not mean an injunction against an airfield, but compensation. But for that extraordinary argument I should not have intervened, but I should like a further explanation from the learned Solicitor-General on the point.

Mr. C. Williams: I also had noticed the quite remarkable explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Surely it is not right for the Government to say they must push this through today because they are pressed for time? It is against all the rules of law for the Government to say that there has been no action so far, but one may be brought, and therefore the private citizen must be cut off from any rights he may have at the present time. I emphasise that because we have had a very friendly discussion today; perhaps I may pay a compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary on the way he has conducted this Bill. All the defences have been knocked down one after another, until the only defence of this Clause


remaining is the one just advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, unless the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who I see is giving close attention, has some other defence to bring forward. I think it would be wise on the part of the Government to get the remaining Clauses and then give some more time, so that between now and Report or Third Reading the Government could think again. Hon. Members all over the House have spoken and I hope the Government will not force us to take the further stages of the Bill. Obviously it could be done next week, almost certainly by consent, and I think everybody would wish to see the Bill through if we could be met on this point.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will be interested when I explain that around the airport with which I am particularly concerned at the moment there are very many good members of the Labour Party living in their own houses. I am not a lawyer but this is the position as it strikes me. There will be provision by Order in Council to legalise certain practices. Those practices may be a nuisance, but nevertheless, in the interests of the country at large, we agree that they should be carried on. But aircraft coming in day after day, night after night might, in course of time—over say five, six or ten years—create definite material damage to a house. The question I want to put is whether the house owner can take the airline operator or the airport authority to court to sue for damages to his property when it can be proved that the damages result from vibration of aircraft. It is a simple point and I should like a reply.

1.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Having listened to the speeches which have been made since I spoke last myself, it appears to me that the major questions which have arisen on this new Clause have already been discussed. There have been some interesting disquisitions on the physiognomy of some of my hon. Friends who sit beside me, but they did not seem to be altogether accurate and I have read them before as applied to other hon. Members of this House. There have been general descriptions of the object of this Bill, which seems to me to be very innocent indeed, and I do not think I can elaborate further

on its details. I, to the best of my ability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) have explained what it is for and how it works, and I would ask the Committee to decide upon it now.
With regard to the points which have arisen the only one, so far as I can remember, which is outstanding as a specific question on a specific point is that which has just been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). The reply to that is that when the only complaint is noise and vibration then, providing the requirements are fulfilled by the aerodrome authorities and the operators of the aircraft, one cannot bring an action. But if one suffer not only noise and nuisance but damage to a building then the subsection does not apply and action could be taken. I say with all sincerity that that seems to me to be the only point on the Clause which remained. Hon. Members opposite have said it is a dangerous precedent because if we have it in the case of air transport we may also extend it to other nationalising Acts. Whether that is so or not I respectfully submit to the Committee that it is not a matter to discuss on this Bill. It should be discussed if and when it is sought to extend it to other nationalising Bills. The aircraft industry has particular problems of its own such as this question of vibration and judder which is peculiarly a question of aircraft in flight and on the ground, and cannot be dissociated from aircraft. We have therefore dealt in a way which we think is the best way with this particular problem which is inherent in aircraft and the use of aircraft. I have endeavoured to answer the points which were raised in the Debate. No further point was raised other than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, and in those circumstances I would ask the Committee to decide now on this new Clause.

Captain Crookshank: Although neither a lawyer nor an expert on civil aviation I have been interested in the discussion this morning, and as the Patronage Secretary is here perhaps the question might be reconsidered. As I understand it, when the Business for today was discussed it was the general view that there would be no controversial issues arising from this Bill. Since then, however, the Government have put down a new Clause and the Question before


the Committee now is that it should be read a Second time. It must be quite obvious to the right hon. Gentleman that there are some controversial points since the discussion has now lasted for one and a half hours, and he must realise that there are some differences of substance between us. On the other hand, the Government have told us that it is necessary to get the Bill before the 31st of this month in order that they may be able to carry out the full provisions of the Convention.
Even so, that does not make it necessary to get all the stages of the Bill today, and I therefore suggest to the Patronage Secretary that while the Committee stage will be completed when this Question is put from the Chair, he should postpone further discussion of the Bill and not take the Report and Third Reading stages now. This will enable us to put down an Amendment if we think it desirable. We did ask that that might be done or that alternatively the Government should give an assurance which, coming from the Front Bench, would be equally valid, that they would consider the matter further with a view to introducing an Amendment in another place. But, of course, we are the House of Commons and we prefer that if there are Amendments to be made we should make them rather than rely upon assurances from the Government that they will persuade another place to do it. In view of the changed circumstances which were not foreseen when the Business was suggested, I ask the Patronage Secretary whether he would allow the Ministers to assent—since he is really the dictator in these matters—not to take the further Stages today.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I can only speak from my own point of view. Business is so arranged that I do not see how we could get these stages in if they were not taken now. At the moment the programme has been very carefully gone into between now and Easter, and this was really the only way we could get this Bill by the time it is supposed to be on the Statute Book. I am very sorry, therefore, but I do not see

how I could meet the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire however much I wished to.

Mr. C. Williams: I notice that there is a lot of miscellaneous business down for next Friday so surely it would be possible to take the Report and Third Reading of this Measure then? I quite see that it could not come before, but that is the 21st and gives us ten days for the other proceedings. I venture to make this suggestion because it occurs to me that the right hon. Gentleman may have omitted to think of it.

Mr. Whiteley: I did not omit to think of it, but actually the Business for Friday may have to be altered for other reasons.

Captain Crookshank: A new crisis?

Mr. Williams: Perhaps I may use a little further persuasion on the right hon. Gentleman. He has now said that it is quite likely that all the Business for next Friday may have to be changed, and if that is so it occurs to me that other Business may be upset also. In those circumstances would the right hon. Gentleman not just consider that there have been points raised on this Measure by hon. Members on his own side of the Committee as well as on this side? We do feel that this new Clause involves a big precedent.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Williams: It is all very well for the learned Solicitor-General to shake his head because lawyers can, of course, wipe out a precedent at any given time. Nevertheless, I maintain that this is a precedent and I hope that we shall not be obliged to take the Report and Third Reading now. It is essential that the House of Commons should look after the interests of the private individuals of this country rather than that the Government should depend on another place to make Amendments in a way which no other Government has done.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 63.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[1.10 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hardman, D. R
Rogers, G. H. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hardy, E. A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Segal, Dr. S.


Attewell, H. C.
Haworth, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Austin, H. Lewis
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Herbison, Miss M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T C.


Baird, J.
Hobson, C R.
Skinnard, F. W.


Barton, C.
Holman, P.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Battley, J. R.
House, G.
Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Benson, G.
Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Berry, H.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Beswick, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Jay, D P. T.
Steele, T.


Binns, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Strachey, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Keenan, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Bramall, Major E. A.
Key. C. W.
Swingler, S.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Burke, W. A.
Levy, B. W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Chater, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cobb, F. A.
Mack, J. D
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Cocks, F. S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Collindridge, F.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Walkden, E.


Corvedale, Viscount
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Cove, W. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Warbey, W. N.


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Montague, F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Dodds, N. N.
Mulvey, A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Edelman, M.
Paget, R. T.
Wilkes, L.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Pearson, A.
Wilson, J. H


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Wyatt, W.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Piratin, P.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Gallacher, W
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)



Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Price, M. Philips
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Proctor, W. T
Major Ramsay and


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


Hall, W. G.
Ranger, J.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A
Howard, Hon. A.
Prescott, Stanley


Bennett, Sir P.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bower, N.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G,
Lennox-Boyd, A T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Sanderson, Sir F


Byers, Frank
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Challen, C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Snadden W. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Marples, A. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Drayson, G. B
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Duthie, W. S.
Maude, J. C.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Gridley, Sir A.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Daines

NEW CLAUSE.—(Financial Provisions.)

(1) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any sums payable by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by way of contribution to the expenses of the International Civil Aviation Organization under the Chicago Convention;

(b) such expenses of any delegate, representative or nominee of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom appointed for any purposes connected with the Chicago Convention as may be approved by the Treasury;
(c) any expenses incurred by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the


purposes of Chapter XV of the Chicago Convention (which relates to the provision of airports and other air navigation facilities); and
(d) any other expenses incurred by a Government Department by reason of this Act.

(2) There shall be paid into the Exchequer—

(a) all sums received by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by way of repayment of expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Chapter XV; and
(b) all sums received by way of fees paid under an Order in Council under section one of this Act other than fees which, under an order made under section two of the Air Navigation Act, 1936 (which authorises the delegation of certain functions of the Minister of Civil Aviation to certain bodies), are paid to any of those bodies.—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members will have noticed that this Clause is already printed in the Bill. It was not taken in another place for privilege reasons. It enables finances to be provided for the Ministry, for the international organisation and other Government Departments.

Mr. C. Williams: Some figures are given earlier in the Bill as to finance. We are legislating to enable a great deal of money to be spent. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been spent."] Some of this appears in the first page of the Bill, but I would like Subsection 1 (d) of the new Clause explained. That is extremely wide, and I do not think the Opposition ought to allow this Clause to pass without commenting upon its looseness, and about it not being in keeping with the dignity of the House.

Mr. Lindgren: There are some factors which can be estimated. It is possible to estimate what the obligation will be for the affiliation fees which have to be paid by this country to the international organisation. It is possible to estimate what the costs will be for our delegates to this Conference. But we cannot estimate the administrative costs for other Departments, in the case of a man who spends half his time for three weeks in the year in connection with administration arising out of this Bill. That cannot he adequately defined, and this Clause gives power for expenditure to be incurred in that direction. That expenditure will come up on the various Departmental Votes, and will be subject to the control

of this House. The Clause enables expenditure to be undertaken by other Departments in connection with their Departmental administration.

Mr. C. Williams: That is what I object to. It is like rabbits. A Department is invited to begin spending, and this Clause enables the rabbits to breed indefinitely by the spending of taxpayers' money. It means thousands of other rabbits getting a little bit of the money.

Sir G. Fax: Can we know whether expenses will be incurred by Government Departments overseas by reason of this Bill?

Mr. Lindgren: That could be done it required, by the Dominions or Colonial Offices. But that would not be a matter for the Ministry of Civil Aviation, because we have no jurisdiction over those Departments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry that the harmonious discussion on this Bill has been impaired by a lengthy Debate on the new Clauses. But this is no fault of the Opposition, nor was the Division that has taken place due to any fault of ours. I want to tell the acting Leader of the House that the Government will one day regret that facilities freely granted for one purpose have, against the wishes of the Opposition, been used for another. Having said that, and registered our protest, we welcome this Bill in general. It is largely the product of Lord Swinton's hard work at Chicago. He had to face both foreign and domestic critics. The foreign critics have been largely convinced; the domestic critics have introduced the result of his own labours, and on this occasion we should point the ironical moral that the people who gave him so little support, and criticised his actions so freely in this House, have introduced the result of his own labour. We wish the Bill every success, and hope


that it will increase the air prosperity of Great Britain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [7th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLE MENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47.

CLASS X

MINISTRY OF FOOD

Resolution reported:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £49,840,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Food; the cost of trading services including certain subsidies; and sundry other services.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

1.25 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: After having had an interesting Debate on civil aviation, we now come to a more important topic, namely, the provision of food for this country, without which civil aviation, or anything else, cannot be carried on. I want at the outset to make a protest at the absence of the Minister of Food. The Government have come to the House and have asked for £49,840,000, and I contend—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Is the hon. Gentleman moving the Amendment?

Captain Crookshank: There seems to be some misunderstanding. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would make a statement to start the Debate, but in order to safeguard the position I will formally move the Amendment, so that I can speak later.
I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out "£49,849,000," and to insert £49,839,000."

Sir W. Smithers: I apologise for not being au fait with the procedure, Sir. I was making a protest at the absence of the Minister of Food, who should have been here to ask for this large sum of

money which, in my opinion, is not necessary, because there has been mismanagement of the purchase and distribution of food by this Government. But I suppose that the Minister of Food, if anything goes wrong, will rest on the old-time excuse, and say, "The woman did it." I have asked Question after Question in this House of the right hon. Gentleman about prices paid for food, and the profit or loss on bulk purchase transactions. I have been refused that information time after time. I have been told that further Questions are not allowed, but I am authoritatively informed that I can raise the matter this afternoon, and I am glad to have the opportunity of so doing. The secrecy and refusal to give information is typical of the policy of communist and totalitarian Governments.
1.30 p.m.
I will give examples of bulk purchase, and how, in my belief, they have caused the British taxpayer a lot of money. I have not been able to extract any figures by way of official information, and, therefore, I will tell the hon. Lady some figures which I have been able to secure, and ask her to say definitely whether they are correct or not. If I have to leave before the end of the Debate, and I do not hear the hon. Lady's reply, it will not be because of discourtesy to her. The first example is the purchase of large quantities of oil seeds from the Argentine. I believe that they were sunflower seeds, cotton seeds and linseed, and I am told by those who should know that the difference in prices paid by the Argentine Government to their growers and the price charged to the British Ministry of Food Purchasing Commission was £49 million. It looks as if the Argentine Government took a nice commission of £49 million at the expense of the British taxpayer.
I would also like information as to the wheat deal with Canada. I understand that the Ministry of Food—and I am open to correction if I am wrong—has purchased two-thirds of the wheat crop from Canada, for the next five years, at the price of $1·55 per bushel. I have been to Canada many times, and I believe that the price of wheat in Canada has been as low as 30 to 50 cents per bushel. I was told, when I was there, that "dollar wheat" showed a good profit to the producer. I was also told that, before our purchasing commission arrived, there was


a meeting of the representatives of Western Canada farmers, who said, "Here comes this chap from a very hungry Britain. What is the most we can get out of them?" That is the reason why $1·55 was charged to the British consumer at the expense of the British taxpayer.
Five hundred thousand tons of wheat were purchased from the Argentine. I will quote an article which appeared in "Wall Street Journal, New York," published in the "Evening Standard" on 13th March, with the title, "How to make 200 per cent. profit on wheat." I do this because it is very important in purchasing food not to engender international heat, between countries. We want the food, and we do not want to set one country against another, and put up the price against us. This is what the Journal says:
How to make a profit at 200 per cent. in business deals with wheat farmers is being demonstrated by the Argentine Government, according to London reports from the Comtelburo news agency yesterday.
The procedure is simple. Buy wheat from the farmers for £11 to £13 a ton—sell it to the bread-hungry British for £34 a ton.
When the Argentine Government recently sold the British Ministry of Food 500,000 tons of wheat, it was publicly understood that the price was 350 pesos (about £29) a ton. Yesterday, it was learned, according to Comtelburo, that the price was actually 450 pesos a ton—or £34.
In Argentina the Government buys all the wheat The farmer sells to the Government or he doesn't sell. And the Government determines the price.
The rate of payment to farmers is 170 pesos (nearly.13) a ton for sales of wheat up to 300 tons, and 150 pesos (about £11) a ton on larger quantities.
The £34 a ton price is equal to about 16s. a bushel. It represents—apart from black market or minor transactions—the highest price on record for wheat in European markets. It tops the peaks of world war I and the Napoleonic wars.
Apart from the 500,000 tons deal, it is reported that further sales of Argentine wheat have recently been made to Britain at a price of 16s. 3d. a bushel.
The United States, with half the world now hammering at its doors for grain, is currently selling wheat (what it doesn't give away) at around 14s. 6d. a bushel.
I ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to go into these figures that I have given, and to tell me if they are correct, and why these enormous prices have been paid. The House will realise that I read out that the only buyer

in the Argentine is the Argentine Government. Bulk purchases inevitably involve bulk selling. The wheat producing countries naturally want to sell their wheat. They know that Britain is short of food, and they are getting the highest prices they can. I have always understood that one of the first duties of a Member of Parliament is to be a guardian of the public purse. This is the High Court of Parliament, and I maintain that, owing to' the inability or unwillingness of the Ministry of Food to give us details, this High Court of Parliament is being denied the right of full information, of full evidence, and of full answers, and, therefore, we are not able to arrive at a judgment and tell the taxpayer the awful muddle and loss to the taxpayer which the Minister of Food has created. One of the main reasons for the issue of the economic White Paper, for the shortages, and the crisis is due to bulk purchase.
Apart from all party politics, when we send the Lord President of the Council, Sir Ben Smith, and the present Minister of Food flying over to America on behalf of the British Government, it advertises to the whole world that the British Government think that there are 47 million people in Britain who are short of food. What is the strongest instinct in every human breast? It is self-preservation. Thank Heaven that the mandate of this Government does not run beyond the shores of Britain. Other countries say, "Forty-seven million people in Britain are short of food," and their first thought is to put aside a bit for themselves and their families and then to hold the balance for higher prices. Fancy sending a man like the Minister of Food, who has given allegiance to more political parties in the House than almost anybody—

Mr. George Thomas: What about the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now going a little too wide.

Sir W. Smithers: I am trying to show. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the kind of people, and the kind of background to the Minister of Food. The right hon. Gentleman has about as much stability as a bead of mercury on a polished tray. This is the kind of man who goes to foreign countries and deals with the best business brains in the world. It is a tremendous risk and puts the whole of British credit behind such a man


as our representative, although I do not know what business experience he has had. I should think not very much.
Another point is that bulk purchases of food lead to international irritation and heat. I beg the Government to leave these transactions to experienced firms in the Baltic and Mincing Lane, Manchester and Liverpool. They have long experience and they know exactly where the crops are grown and how to get them. They have had long experience of shipping, of warehousing and insurance. I hope the Government will allow that kind of healthy competition in securing the food that we want. It would operate quietly and would not engender, as I know it has engendered, international heat, or create dissension between Britain and other countries, as in the case of our deals with Argentina and with America. The White Paper 7046 acknowledges that State control has broken dawn, The Prime Minister, in his foreword, was compelled to appeal to the individual. Here we have continuance of food purchases under the State, yet the Government
call upon every man and woman in the country to devote himself unflinchingly to the task.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now quoting from the White Paper upon which we have only this week had a three-day Debate. I must remind him that it would be out of Order to go over the same ground.

Sir W. Smithers: I was not going over the same ground, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was trying to show that the Government had confessed that State control had been wrong because they were now appealing to the individual. The Minister of Food should appeal to individual traders to help us out of our difficulties. A little more faith is needed, instead of sending panicstricken mountebanks flying all over the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I give a definition of "mountebank"? It will shorten my speech. I have obtained it from Webster's Dictionary., It is as follows:
One who mounts a bank or bench or stage in a marketplace and boasts of his skill in curing disease by medicines which he pretends are invaluable remedies, and thus deludes the ignorant multitude.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On which part of the Supplementary Estimate is the hon. Member now speaking?

1.45 p.m.

Sir W. Smithers: I am talking about the method of purchasing foodstuffs from abroad. It is in paragraph (2) under the heading:
Trade services, cereals (including cereals and foodstuffs).
These materials are being obtained by bulk purchase. I am contending that they are being done in the wrong way and by the wrong people, and I am saying that this gentleman, by the policy put forward through him, is pretending to have an invaluable remedy which is deluding the ignorant multitude. The definition concludes:
Persons of this character may be indicted or punished.
As Arbuthnot wrote:
Nothing is so impossible in nature but mountebanks will undertake it.
I am saying that to attempt to feed this country through men with no business experience and to send him out as a buyer, on behalf of the British Government creates tremendous loss to the British taxpayer. If the ordinary channels of trade had been allowed to operate, the Supplementary Estimate would never have been necessary.
I say in all seriousness, let us put our faith not in a Socialist Minister but in God. God's promise has been given, and we should have more faith and not so much panic. He will not fail His people.
While earth remaineth, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, shall not cease.
I ask the hon. Lady to give us some indication whether the figures which I have given to the House are true or not, and what profit or loss has been made on the bulk purchase transactions.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I am not quite sure where we are in this Debate. I understood that an Amendment was to be moved for a reduction in the figure in the Estimate. I behave that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has in fact moved that reduction, but I am not quite sure why a reduction has been moved unless it is in order to elicit a further explanation of the £7 million which was the occasion of a good deal of argument last Friday and which was paid to the Argentinian Government in respect of meat supply under contract with this country. It is on that point and that point alone—

Sir W. Smithers: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would point out that there is also £49 million in respect of the oil seed deal and other transactions, about which I cannot get an answer to my questions. I therefore want an explanation now.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with the points raised by the hon. Member when she winds up the Debate. In order to see exactly where we are it might be for the convenience of the House if we dealt with the Amendment on the Paper. I am now assured that it has relevance only—

Captain Crookshank: As the right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question it would be only courteous for me to reply. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, and he will see from HANSARD of last Friday, col. 883, that we ceased the Committee discussion of these Estimates upon an assurance that the hon. Lady would make a full and frank statement on the Report stage with regard to the £7 million. If, as I take it, the right hon. Gentleman is now taking her place, that is another matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We were under the impression that that was the one outstanding point left for discussion when we dealt with this matter.

Captain Crookshank: It does not limit the Debate.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It will be within the recollection of the House that there was some suggestion that, if we got through these Estimates as early as possible, we might have time for a discussion on Greece.

Sir W. Smithers: No. Has not the right hon. Gentleman been here all the time?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Last week we gave a considerable amount of time to this Vote. The Parliamentary Secretary replied at considerable length to criticisms. I was under the impression that the one outstanding point on which there was a great deal of criticism and query was why the £7 million had been paid to the Argentinian Government in respect of meat. Although it is my view that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food dealt with this point adequately—I have been very carefully through that Debate

—there is not a great deal that I can add. Nevertheless, in so far as I can expand what she said I am, of course, very willing to do it.

Sir Peter Macdonald: We have had no replies to our questions about groundnuts from Tanganyika. We hope to hear more about that today. Also, there has been no adequate explanation about the loss which occurred on Ceylon tea due to the export duty charged by the Ceylon Government, which evidently has been passed on to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, she will deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald). My function in this Debate is to deal with the point about £7 million paid to the Argentine Government in respect of meat bought under contract. As hon. Members know, for many years we have bought meat from the Argentine, which is a great exporter of meat. This country has unfortunately to import a good deal of meat; and one of our main sources of supply is the Argentine. The contract under discussion now is the sixth of its kind. That fact gives the House some idea of the length of time during which we have been buying in bulk from the Argentine Government. I thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) when he said earlier—and I am sorry that he did not remember what he said—that we do not want to set one -country against another.
We must remember that, when contracts are made with the Argentine, it is not our fault that that Government insists that their farmers shall sell their produce to the Government. We must take the world as we find it, and we must buy what is needed for the people of this country in the markets where we can get it. One of the markets is the Argentine. I imagine that, like the hon. Member for Orpington, they believe in private enterprise and free commercial give and take, the buyer paying whatever the seller can extract from him. If a buyer wants a thing very much, it is difficult to keep that information from the seller.

Sir W. Smithers: It is all very well to use that argument. If Britain would allow her ordinary merchants to go personally to the producers in the Argentine, we should get the food at a lower price.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is not my function to pursue this point in the Debate. We are to have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, who is more than able to deal with points of that kind. We must take things as we find them. It is a fact that the Argentine Government take over from their nationals, and we must deal with the Argentine Government. For many years I am afraid it will be essential, just as it was during the war, that we should buy in bulk in order to get the best for the people at the best possible world price. It is also true that during the war the Argentine Government sold their exportable surplus of meat to us for sterling. We must not forget that, when some of us are inclined to say hard things about the people of that country.
In 1944, a further agreement was signed which was to last for four years. It was an integral part of that agreement that the prices fixed were open to survey at the request of either party at the end of two years. The Argentine Government, as they were entitled to do under the terms of the original agreement, reopened the matter and, on behalf of the Ministry of Food and the Treasury, representatives went out to discuss details with them. The opportunity was taken, in negotiating the new price for the two years unexpired portion of the previous contract, to extend the agreement for a further year. What surprised me—and it still does—is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared not to know anything about this £7 million when the matter was debated last week. If they had looked at the Economic Agreement which was signed in September, 1946, and which has been in the Vote Office for many weeks—Cmd. 6953—they would have seen that paragraph 6 says:
In order to facilitate the adjustment- to present costs of production the British Government will make a single cash payment of £5 million in 'free sterling' to the Argentine Government represented by the Argentine Institution for the Promotion of Exchange.
Therefore, it is wrong for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to come to the House and to pretend that this is the first they have heard about it. It was made quite plain in a document which has been in circulation, and has been available through the Vote Office, for many weeks. If hon. Members opposite did not know of this agreement to pay an extra sum, that is not our fault. What

they may not have known about is the fact that the £5 million had been increased to £7 million. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained during the Debate last week, the reasons for that are quite plain. They are that, in the negotiating which took place, the Argentine Government represented to the British Government that £5 million was insufficient to enable them to satisfy their primary producers. They asked for something more in addition to the original £5 million which had been agreed to in September, 1946, and set forth in the White Paper to which I have referred.
The representatives of the British Government did not agree to this immediately. There was a good deal of hard bargaining and discussions which occupied many weeks. The negotiations went on for several months and it was only in the end, as part of a larger bargain, that the representatives of the British Government agreed that the extra £2 million should be added to the £5 million. The consideration for the extra £2 million is that this country is to get 83 per cent. of the exportable surplus of the Argentine meat output during the coming years. I think the House will agree that it was worth while coming to that arrangement in order to get the extra meat which this country wants. In our view, it is much better, for one reason if for no others, that the matter should have been settled in this way rather than we should have paid the very much higher prices for which the Argentine Government asked.
We do not only buy meat from the Argentine but from other parts of the world and from our own Dominions, and we consider it would be grossly unfair to give the Argentine Government a better price for comparable meats than we have arranged to give Australia, New Zealand or some other part of the British Commonwealth; these prices must be more or less in line. When we are buying in bulk we must bear considerations of that kind in mind. They were borne in mind in coming to the agreement with the Argentine, and the extra £2 million which, after a good deal of discussion, was added to the £5 million brought as a quid pro quo from the Argentine Government their agreement to sell to us 83 per cent. of the exportable surplus of the Argentine meat supply. That has been embodied in an agreement, and the meat is already coming here.
I do not think there is any more I can say. I hope I have satisfied the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough. We have nothing to hide. We realise it is the duty of this House to watch these matters with the utmost care. So far as this contract is concerned we think we have not made a bad bargain at all. We have not been silly or soft, nor have we improperly given in to pressure. On the contrary, we think the House will find on examination of our agreement, that it was worth the money we gave.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his very full statement. He probably agrees that the interchanges we have had last Friday and today have been something in the nature of a storm in a teacup entirely due to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. Either she was not fully informed at the time what this was about or else she loosely used words which are reported in HANSARD. The trouble was that she told us this:
The Argentine Government satisfied us that perhaps the contract which we made with them was not as liberal as it might have been, and we gave them this extra £7 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 880.]
When the Minister says we go giving money away like that, the right hon. Gentleman, with his Treasury experience, will realise that it is not surprising that we questioned the whole transaction. He has now made it quite clear It was not a question of giving in the sense of an ex gratia payment. There was a regular four year agreement. At the end of two years the prices were open to survey. The Argentine Government were entitled, as we were, at that date to reopen the question of the figures, and they did so, and as a result of that an agreement was reached to make a further payment. That is quite a different thing to saying that we had given them something, which was the impression which the hon. Lady most unfortunately left us with. However the right hon. Gentleman has now cleared the matter up and I do not propose to press the Motion for reduction any further.
I have just a couple of comments to make. It is unfortunately the case that when we have these bulk agreements negotiated by Governments if any question is raised about any points

in them there is apt to be misunderstanding in one country or another. That has been one of the arguments we on this side of the House have always felt was decisive against a continuance of bulk purchasing. A little difference of opinion between two business people about a word incautiously used—such as by the Parliamentary Secretary, when she says "gave" when she means nothing of the kind—would pass away and no one would give it a moment's thought, but because it has been used and reported in HANSARD, for all I know it may have caused misunderstanding elsewhere. If that is so, it is not our fault, but that of the hon. Lady. I hope that no harm has been done. If there was anything I could say today which would prevent misunderstanding, I would say so.
My second point is one which arises out of this particular incident. The Government ought now to take into consideration very seriously when they are indulging in all these bulk purchases what sort of accounts they intend in future to bring before Parliament in these matters. In all the nationalisation Bills going forward, very great care is being taken by Parliament to see that proper forms of account are provided so that the nation may know what is being done with that part of the national property. During the war it was impossible, but now Parliament should have proper notice when bulk purchasing of food is to continue on the scale envisaged in this Supplementary Estimate. We are having to add nearly £50 million by one Supplementary Estimate for one reason or another, whether it is because we have not drawn enough or have drawn too much on one lot of stocks or another, or have paid too much or too little on one commodity or another. Commercial accounts are produced in the case of the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman and his Treasury officials should now consider very seriously how far proper commercial accounts can be produced with regard to trading services on food. If not, there are bound to be—to use a commonplace term—endless possibilities for playing about with stocks and endless possibilities with regard to balancing the Budget for the year. At any moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer may tell the Minister of Food, "Draw more on your stocks because we cannot afford to spend another £50 million or £100 million as it will unbalance my Budget." Parliament


should know what is happening, and I urge the Minister to consider that.
So far as the Argentine contract episode is concerned, we are quite prepared to accept the full and frank statement which the Financial Secretary has made. We merely regret that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food was not sufficiently informed to give it last week as that would have saved all this trouble. However, as we all benefit by these lessons, I hope that the hon. Lady on the next occasion will be able to deal with any conundrum put forward. I would add that I hope that on the next occasion we may be treated to a sight of the Minister of Food.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. During your absence the Financial Secretary said he understood that we were going to get through the next Supplementary Estimates very quickly in order to get on to Greece. Does that mean that the next Supplementary Estimate will not be discussed?

Mr. Speaker: That referred to the discussion on this Vote. We will see what comes on next.

Question, "That '£49,840,000' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [10th March]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1946–47.

CLASS V.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.

Resolutions reported:
1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947 for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland; including grants and other expenses in connection with housing, town and country planning and the creation of new Towns; hospital grants and services; general health grants and services, including a supplemental grant in respect of medical benefit and a grant in aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Fund; water and sewerage grants and services; and other services.

CLASS II.

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR ESTABLISHMENTS, &C.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,120,010, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments abroad; certain special grants and payments, including grants in aid; and sundry other services."

UNITED NATIONS.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £268,919, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the change which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for a contribution towards the expenses of the United Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith."

CLASS II.

ASSISTANCE TO GREECE.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £19,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1947, for a contribution to the cost of the Greek Armed Forces and for a gift to the Greek Government of certain civilian goods."

First, Second and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

2.10 p.m.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think that anyone, in any quarter of the House, would grudge the £19 million asked for in this Supplementary Estimate, for, if any country deserves assistance in postwar reconstruction, none deserves it more than our ancient Ally, Greece. Among Balkan countries, she alone resisted aggression in 1940, at a time when our chances of defeating Hitler must have seemed to some, at any rate, rather slender. Her reward was the occupation by both Italian and German Forces, devastation, hunger and starvation, and when, finally, those occupation troops withdrew, 85 per cent. of the children of Greece were found to be suffering from tuberculosis, and over 1,000 villages had been laid waste. The withdrawal, or surrender, of those occupying forces was followed, alas, by civil war. As though that were not enough, the civil war has been replaced by a war of nerves, sustained by intense guerrilla activities, so


that the rule of the Greek Government is at best regional, and at worst, local.
In our anxiety to heal this running sore, financial assistance is, I think, the least that we can give. Originally, His Majesty's Government agreed in October, 1945, to provide £11 million for the equipment of the gendarmerie and the Greek Army, and they later undertook to provide further assistance, from 1st January, 1946, until 31st March of this year. Again, in order to assist economic rehabilitation, we undertook to waive payment in respect of consumer goods to the value of £500,000, and we agreed to make available a further £500,000 in the form of surplus stores already in Greece. These sums were included, I think, in the total cost of British aid to Greece, of £87 million, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House on the 6th of this month.
I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State to break down these figures into a little more detail. In the last Debate which we had on foreign affairs, my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) raised a number of important points about the size of the Greek Army and about the nature of the equipment which we had given, or had promised to give. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in replying to that Debate, gave an assurance that the questions asked by my hon. Friend would be dealt with when the Supplementary Estimates were discussed. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear the answers to those questions from the Minister of State today.
I also want to ask a few questions, in addition to those asked by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University. We would like to know the cost and the size of the British Military, Economic and Police Missions in Greece, in relation to the value of the equipment supplied to the Greek Army. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the officers of these Missions are satisfied with the results of their labours, and, in particular, on the economic side, could he give us some indication of what progress has been made? For instance, can we be quite certain that such assistance as we have been able to give to Greece will be sufficient to tide her over any intervening period between the date when U.N.R.R.A.

supplies dry up—the House will, of course, remember that 50 per cent. of the population of Greece depend for their food supplies upon U.N.R.R.A. stocks—and the date when any possible assistance from the United States might commence?
2.15 p.m.
These are not easy questions to answer, for economic recovery in Greece is hampered throughout at every turn by the activities of the guerrilla bands. The breakdown of law and order over large areas in the north does not go hand in hand with a successful reconstruction programme. It is clearly the first duty of any Government to maintain law and order within its own territories. But such material resources as Greece possesses today are largely dissipated in the maintenance of over 100,000 men under arms, in an attempt to deal with the guerrilla bands, some of whom are armed and trained in neighbouring countries.

Mr. George Thomas: Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)rose—

Mr. Solley: On a point of Order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has just said is in relation to a matter which is sub judice. As I understand it, the question of whether the guerrillas on the Northern borders of Greece are receiving any aid from adjacent countries, is one which is now being investigated by a committee of the United Nations. I submit, therefore, Sir, that, in those circumstances, the remark of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is not in Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member makes a statement on his own authority.

Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. The statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made is a very serious one. Attention has often been drawn in this House when I have made similar statements to the fact that they should not be made unless there is some evidence to back them up.

Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman should read the report of his own committee.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members make statements on their own authority, and they are responsible for them.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am perfectly entitled to make what I believe to be an accurate statement of fact, although hon. Members opposite may not like it. Perhaps they would read, or at least reread, the report of the Parliamentary Mission, composed of hon. Members of all parties, which went out to Greece last year. In one of the paragraphs in that report there is the statement that, in their view, some, though not all, assistance for the guerrillas was derived from resources on the other side of the Greek frontier. The cost of maintaining these men under arms —this Greek army of over 100,000 men—is certainly a heavy burden. How can the Greek Government at the same time devote their attention to economic and physical reconstruction?
In passing, I want to ask the Minister of State about the Greek tobacco crop. I am informed that there are still between 60,000 and 70,000 tons of unsold tobacco lying in Greek warehouses. This stock is the result of an accumulation of the tobacco crops of the last three years, of which we and the United States have so far, taken only 10,000 tons. I should have thought that, in view of our dollar position, we could have purchased rather more than that.
The war of nerves, to which Greece is being subjected—

Mr. Solley: By the Americans.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: —not by the Americans—is being intensified or diminished according to the wishes of those responsible for organising those disruptive forces. The temperature can be brought to boiling point, or it can be allowed to cool off. Across the frontiers guerrilla bands could infiltrate in numbers in excess of the Greek Army and gendarmerie, for whose maintenance part of. the £18 million in the Supplementary Estimate is earmarked. Moreover, the unfortunate Greeks see on the other side of their borders an army in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia far larger than theirs, and in face of those two large armies, the Greek Government must at least maintain a Greek army adequate not only to deal, as far as they can, with the guerrilla bands within their own territory, but adequate for the defence of their frontiers as well. The leaders of these bands are adopting the well-known technique of forcing the Greek Government to take repressive

measures against them and then complaining of those repressive measures when they are taken.
This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. The Greeks cannot stand on their own feet if the authority of the Greek Government does not extend from Athens to her frontiers. The aim of the guerrilla bands is clear; it is to prolong a state of chaos in order to wreck any hope of economic recovery, thereby creating conditions favourable for a further attempt to overthrow the present Government and reduce Greece into a state of anarchy which she so narrowly escaped in the winter of 1944–45. To whom has the Greek Government been able to turn for assistance except to ourselves, since the United Nations organisation is as yet unable to bear heavy responsibilities? We are the oldest democracy in the world. We owe much of our civilisation to ancient Greece. I submit that His Majesty's Government are fulfilling their rightful function in assisting, as much as lies within their power, a Greek Government, which is the product of the fairest elections that Greece has ever known, to restore law and order to her gallant citizens.

Mr. Edelman: I am sure every hon. Member will support what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) about the debt which we owe to Greece. We owe her that debt not only because of her ancient culture, to which we owe so much, but even more than that, perhaps, because of the part which she played in the war against Italy and Germany. It is because we approve of what Greece has done for us in the past that we want Greece today to be free and independent. I am sure none of us would want Greece to be in the position of a kept country; nor would we want her to be treated as a soiled courtesan who is passed on from one protector to another. Consequently, in considering this Estimate, I am concerned with several things. Does it contribute to the independence of Greece? Does it satisfy our own obligation of honour towards Greece? Does it help Greece to stand on her own feet, and, finally—I believe this is equally important—does it contribute not merely to Greece's security but to our own security as well?
During the past year and a half I have thought that our main task in Greece—


and I would say, in parenthesis, that I have always considered the presence of our troops there to be a stabilising factor—was to help the Greeks to restore their economy; for that reason I supported the Estimate which provided a £10 million credit for the Greek people. I recall on that occasion the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—now the Minister of State—saying that, "in view of our own difficulties, the scale of our assistance, particularly, that £10 million credit, must be reckoned as quite generous." I think the right hon. Gentleman was speaking then with his customary understatement, because £10 million, judged by any standard, is a most substantial contribution. But have the Greeks used that money in order to obtain economic stability?
When I was in Greece about 18 months ago, I spoke to M. Varvaressos, who only a few days previously had had to resign his Ministry. He had made a resolute attempt to create economic stability in Greece, primarily by means of taxation; but the fact is that the Greeks refused to pay taxes in the measure of which they were capable. We consequently find ourselves in a position today in which we are asking the British taxpayer to contribute £19 million raised from taxation to which the Greeks themselves seem unwilling to make a fair contribution. I would therefore ask the Minister of State what success, if any, has our economic mission had in Greece? What success has it had in really seeing that the Greek economy is put on a proper basis and that Greece does not require a permanent remittance from her former Allies? Those are questions which require answers before we can fairly ask taxpayers in this country to foot so large a bill.
On the question of the £18 million which we are advancing for the Greek Army, the hon, and gallant Member for Windsor was perfectly right in asking that this sum should be broken down so that we can see how it has been used. I ask the Minister of State how much of that sum has been used for arming the gendarmerie in Greece. I recall that, not long ago, the Foreign Secretary, in reply to a Question, said that no sums would be made available for arming the gendarmerie as M. Tsaldaris had requested. I would like to know whether any of that sum has been, or is to be, advanced for the purpose of arming a

gendarmerie or local militia to prosecute a civil war.
I wish now to emphasise one point in respect of the financial contribution which we are making to the Greek Army. There is a chronic condition of civil war in Greece, which I deplore. I had always hoped that we would be able to have a regime in Greece sympathetic to Great Britain, allied to us through friendship and through the popular will. I had hoped that such a Government would be neither of the extreme Left nor of the extreme Right, but would be a coalition of the Moderate, Left and Centre elements who would come together, win the good will of the Greek people, and not require our arms to bolster them up. Today, there is in Greece an army and military expenditure which is quite disproportionate either to the needs of the country, in my opinion, or to the country's economic budget. We are offering the Greek people a further £11 million—in all, £11 million—for economic reconstruction, whereas the amount which we are advancing to them for military purposes—and it is clearly not the final contribution which will have to be made to Greece—is a sum of £18 million. If that sum were to create a Greek Army which would have the effect of creating peaceful conditions internally and in relation to her neighbours, I would approve of this Estimate; but there is no guarantee, given present conditions, that the creation even of a well-equipped Greek Army will have the effect of creating peaceful and normal conditions in Greece, as long as there are not internally the political conditions by means of which the Army can really be considered to be the instrument of the Greek people as a whole. We hear of mass desertions. Whether they are true I have no means of knowing. But is it true that there have been mass desertions, involving the abstraction of British arms and equipment which we paid for in order to supply the Royal Greek Army?
2.30 p.m.
I deplore any kind of military intervention in a foreign country. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who himself, I believe, before the war, opposed intervention in Spain, would not wish to be associated with any kind of intervention in Greece. I do not think we ought to intervene; I do not


think that the Russians ought to intervene. I say that clearly and definitely. It would be illogical and improper that we should abstain from intervention while the Russians or the Yugoslavs had a clear field. The only way in which we can have peace in Greece, peace in the Balkans and peace in the world is if there is a truly democratic independent Greece. That can only come by a coalition of the Greek people themselves, a coalition from which the extreme elements will be removed, a coalition of moderate men coming together in the interests of Greece.
Finally, I would say this. Bandits can be hired with gold sovereigns; a mercenary army can be bought with dollars and sterling; but the only way in which we can win the sympathy of the people is by carrying out a good policy. I hope that our policy in Greece will be to encourage real democracy and genuine independence. If we do that we may hope with Byron "that Greece may yet be free."

Professor Savory: There is a great deal in what the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) has said with which we can all agree. When he said in his last sentence that our hope would be that democracy would be maintained in Greece, I presume that he was using the word "democracy" in the sense in which most of us here use it, namely, that the Government which has issued out of impartial elections, the only impartial elections ever held in the Balkans, should be maintained, because it is the Government of democracy.
We must do our utmost to support His Majesty's Government on this Estimate for several reasons. First, because of the immense difficulties with which the Greeks are contending on their frontiers. I noticed that one of my hon. Friends alluded to these guerrilla forces, who are very largely inspired from abroad, and he was told that the matter was now the subject of a U.N.O. Commission of Inquiry. I shall have supreme confidence in these Committees of U.N.O. if they bring in their verdict in accordance with the evidence, and the evidence in this case is so absolutely overwhelming that these guerrilla bands have been supported from Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. We can only ask that the Greek Government and its Army shall be given the powers to

resist and to maintain order in its own country.
In view of the fact that the British Army must be withdrawn eventually, it is absolutely essential, from the strategic point of view, that the Greek Government should be able to maintain the independence of the country.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the Eire Government?

Professor Savory: When we think, looking round at the various Baltic States, that Rumania has been lost—we have not even had a reply, as the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly admitted, to our protests with regard to the falsification of the elections—Bulgaria even insults foreign representatives and lays hands on the French Minister—

Mr. Cocks: On a point of Order. I understand that the Estimate we are considering deals with Greece. Is the question of Rumania in order upon this Estimate?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that the hon. Member was mentioning Rumania as an illustration.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) is entitled to refer to Rumania as an example, will it be permissible for those of us on this side of the House to refer to Eire as an example?

Mr. Speaker: We shall have to wait and see.

Professor Savory: In view of the fact that British influence has, within the last year or two, declined to such an extent in the Balkans—I was intending to refer to those farcical elections in Yugoslavia, and the refusal to observe the most solemn agreement made between the Allies and Marshal Tito—we must see, above all, that the situation in Greece is maintained. Our whole strategic position in the Mediterranean depends entirely upon it. Surely, if the whole of the rest of Eastern Europe is under the domination of a foreign Power, we are at least entitled to defend Greece, to which we owe so much, that country to which our brave heroes played so large a part in restoring its independence.
Further, in other respects, we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Greece. Nothing could have exceeded the heroism


with which she resisted the Italian invasion, the help she gave to our trooops on their passage through Greece, right up to the unfortunate final issue. Our debt to Greece, and to Greek civilisation, is incalculable. What is this paltry £18 million in comparison with what we owe to our Greek friends? There is a great deal more I should have liked to have said but I wish to be brief as there are so many other hon. Members who desire to speak. I hope that the House will give its unanimous support to the Government in granting this Vote.

Mr. George Thomas: I must confess that I listened with some impatience to the statements which have come from the other side of the House about the guerrillas and about the part which the Greeks played in the late war. There is unanimity in this House about the valour of the Resistance Movement of Greece—[HON. MEMBERS: "And the Greek Army"]—yes, and the Greek Army. It is a tragedy that if this money is voted today it will be going to help a system whereby those who fought the Security Battalions of Hitler in Greece during the war are now suffering. During my recent visit to Greece, I came across a commissioned officer of the Greek Army who was the first one to join the Resistance Movement. He has in his possession a letter from Field-Marshal Alexander, thanking him for saving the lives of 13 English Servicemen. But in order to do it he had to kill the Greek who was betraying them to the Security Battalions. Today, that young man is under sentence of death for killing that Greek traitor during the German occupation. I believe that the good name of Britain is in danger if we say that we will support a system under which this sort of thing can happen.
At the present time the gendarmerie, and I believe that His Majesty's Government cannot be quite unaware of this, contain in their ranks known collaborators with the Hitler regime. During my visit to Athens, I happened to meet a man of 20 years of age, to days out of hospital, who had had his right leg amputated at the knee. The person who had done it was a gendarme, Papageorgou. This man had gone during the German occupation to the young man's house to arrest him on behalf of the Germans. Now he goes in the guise of the gendarmerie, and shoots

this boy on the way home. He is still in the gendarmerie. The facts are known. I brought them to the knowledge of responsible people in Greece, who shrugged their shoulders, and said, "Unfortunately there is this spirit where people have suffered themselves in 1944; they still have resentment, and they will have their own back." I submit to the House that the gendarmerie in Greece today is unworthy of any contribution from this State.
I could give more details of the gendarmerie but I will now refer to the guerrillas. I happen to be the only Member of this House who has talked with the leaders of the guerrillas, as well as the leaders of the present Government in Greece. No one can accuse me of only talking with the Left. I have talked with the Right, and on occasions I have stayed with the Right. I talked with the Centre, and in the Central Party of Mr. Sophoulis I met a former Cabinet Minister who said, "Sir, there is freedom in the central streets of Athens, but in the central streets of Athens alone. If you are seen reading a Left wing paper in the suburbs, you will be beaten up." In the provinces I had to move very carefully myself. I had to wait until dark before I could contact Liberals and Socialists. The regime now in force in Greece makes that of Franco look like a Sunday school party. It is something unworthy of the support of this country. I beg hon. Members opposite to believe me. I am doing my best not to add colour to an already colourful story. I am giving the facts as I know them.
Who are these guerrillas to whom so much reference has been made? I met teachers, lawyers, priests, doctors, a mass of shepherds, and farm labourers. I will not believe that these professional people give up the comfort of their homes, and abandon their friends and take to the hardships of the mountains willingly. They do it because life is made impossible for them in the provincial towns or the capital city. The position is that people can be arrested without a charge. Indeed, they can be sentenced in their absence without knowing that they have been tried. Consequently, the islands around Greece are full of political exiles. Is this the sort of thing for which any hon. Member would wish to stand? I believe that hon. Members opposite, equally with those on my side of the House, must look with dismay and disgust upon a Government which seeks to wipe out political


opposition by removing its political opponents to exile around its shores.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: Before the hon. Member finally adorns all these guerrillas with haloes, will he tell us the circumstances in which the wife of one deputy, and a daughter of another, were murdered a few weeks ago?

Mr. Thomas: I did not refer to that, but I have had some information about it. I am not trying to say that all guerrillas are saints. I do not believe it is possible in any movement in this country to say that every individual member is born of righteousness and clothed in white. The lady to whom the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) referred was killed during the raid. Her husband was the leader of those fighting the guerrillas, and she remained on the scene of battle, according to my information. I give it to the House as I received it. She was found dead after the battle. Unfortunately, civil war in any country is always more fierce and more repellent than any other sort of war.

Mr. Gallacher: Do hon. Members recall that when the Black and Tans were fighting, a woman nearly in childbirth was done to death?

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas: The political police force in Greece today has the features of which I have heard the hon. Member for Queen's University (Professor Savory) complain so often in other countries. It is a police force which is highly political, and which drags people from their beds, as 500 were dragged last Wednesday morning, and by nightfall they were on their way to the Aegean Islands, without any opportunity of defending themselves. That is, if the information which has been sent to me from Greece is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, any more than my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has reason to doubt it. The Greek Government are making no effort at reconstruction but are devoting all their energies to this civil war.

Professor Savory: What else can they do?

M. Thomas: One moment. Last May when the guerrilla movement was not strong in Greece, nothing was done then. It is two years since the end of the war,

and this vote of £18 million for armaments, and £1 million for reconstruction, is indicative of the general attitude adopted out there. It is possible to buy any luxury in Athens. They are importing all sorts of luxuries without any sense of responsibility at all for the restoration of the economic life of that nation. At a time when we receive gladly, and with pride, £11 million from New Zealand, I suggest that it is going a bit far to spend £18 million on armaments to support one side in the civil war in Greece. It may be true that in Greece there are extremes on one side and the other, but what is also true is that it is a bad thing for Britain to be supporting the Right against the Liberals and Socialists.
Our fear of Russia is also entering here, and it is not so much a question of the welfare of the Greeks as that of watching our own position. I recognise the strategic importance of Greece to this country, but I believe the best way for us to keel) Greece friendly towards us is to encourage a happy relationship with its working people, and not with those who are the mountebanks referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) in another Debate this afternoon who, having got into power, are determined to keep it by tyranny of all sorts. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) said this afternoon, the only remedy for Greece is a centre Government, a broad Government. I agree that we must have a broad Government. I would like to pay a tribute to the Parliamentary report which was issued by our colleagues from all sides of the House when they went to Greece, but I believe that we must get E.A.M. into that Government. You may not like it, but you cannot ignore it. There they are, and in strength, and it would be better to give them responsibility.
I believe that the House ought to be aware—and these are my concluding words—that even on the part of those who are asking us to stop this help to the right wing in Greece there is a deep friendship towards Great Britain. The names of that great Parliamentarian of the past. William Ewart Gladstone, and, of the poet Byron, are still honoured and regarded with affection by those people. They cannot believe that we who believe in liberty and freedom of speech for ourselves can support a system which denies them to the Greeks, a system which


means that to be a progressive at all is to be unable to go out after dark. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) smiles and shakes his head, but I am convinced that if he made the trip which I made, living with the peasants and sharing their hardships, if he went without their knowing who he was and just moved about, he would be disturbed to see honest citizens afraid to speak, unable to buy a paper of their own political opinion because the gendarmerie denied it. There is one law in Athens and another law in the provinces, and I ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot bring pressure to bear, or use the good offices of the Government, to bring more toleration and more justice in Greece, and to give to the ordinary people the liberty for which they fought so hard, a fight to which all parts of this House have paid tribute.

Mr. Pickthorn: I had not intended to refer to the relations between the parties and factions in Greece, but since there has been so much reference to that subject I think that there ought to be something said from this side of the House. I have not had the advantage of recent direct experience myself and therefore I shall couch most of what I have to say on that side of the subject n the form of questions; because I do think, after the speeches we have heard and most particularly after the speeches we have just heard, that it is most incumbent upon the Foreign Office spokesman to confirm or correct whatever has been said.
It really is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite twitting us for, not producing evidence for everything we may say on this matter. Evidence, in any strict sense of the word, is really not producible, and with respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member. for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), he did not himself produce any evidence in the strict sense of the word. [Interruption.] In the strict sense of the word—it is not evidence how a woman was killed to say someone wrote and told him all about it. I also have been a recipient of some sort of evidence about those two murders—and there were two. When hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that what is wanted in Greece is a Coalition Government going the whole way, excluding what they call the extreme Right, and what they call the extreme Left but otherwise going the whole way round, I would ask them to consider

this. Coalition in this country has not always been easy, nor have its effects been wholly beneficial. At the particular moment I have nothing but respect, and n cases some slight affection, for the present ornaments of the Treasury Bench. There are some others who might be there but who do not happen to be here this afternoon—perhaps they did not know I was going to speak—for whom I have less regard. I do not think it would be very helpful to suppose that I and any hon. Friends that I may have would be able easily to coalesce with them, if perhaps my daughter had been murdered by one of them and the wife of the hon. Gentleman who sits beside me by another.
I ask the Foreign Office to tell us what information they have about these two murders, for murders I believe them to have been, or if they were unfortunate accidents in the course of civil war, what information they have to that effect. In pursuance of that, I would like to ask them whether it is true, as I am informed, that there really has been a great difference between the killings on the one side and on the other side in this matter. I claim no recent direct knowledge but know Greece a little bit, I know a little of Thessaly and Macedonia, and I know something of the history of the country from books as well, and I well know that this is not the beginning of faction, vendetta, even assassination, in Greece. That is true enough. But there is more than one way of doing even these things, and I would ask the Foreign Office to tell us whether it is true that on one side there have been many massacres, many killings of women and children, and on the other side there has not been nearly so much that could not fairly be described as fair fighting, so far as any fighting is ever fair in a civil war. I wish the Foreign Office would give us information about that, and in particular—if I may have the right hon. Gentleman's attention—in particular the massacres at Skra in November and at Mandalo at a date of which I am not quite sure.
The next thing, as we are on this question of parties and factions—I would not have brought it up but we have had it two or three times already and I think now it should be gone into—the next thing I should like to ask is this: What evidence has the Foreign Office of collaboration by E.L.A.S. and E.A.M., not only with persons beyond their borders in recent


months, but with the enemy long ago? It is not true, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, said, that we are all unanimous in our opinion of the gallantry and good services of Greece. I have many reserves to make on that matter, very many reserves, and in particular I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us whether he knows—because this I can assure him is true—that E.L.A.S., up in the North, through the commander there, Kitsos, did on 1st September, 1944, sign a treaty with the Germans that the Germans should not be interfered with in their withdrawal and that those people should be supplied with arms. It must not be assumed—it is a common assumption, too frequently made in this House, sometimes in ignorance and sometimes in malice—that the Left in this matter has always been patriotic, and especially, by some curious fallacy, has always been patriotic from the British point of view. That assumption should not continue to be made, and the Foreign Office should give us any evidence about it which is now in their possession.
I was somewhat surprised at the derision with which an hon. Gentleman on this side was greeted when he spoke of the strategic importance of Greece to us. I do not think this matter ought to be put on the basis of gratitude to Greece. There is reason enough for gratitude to Greece but the business of Governments is to look after their own interests. The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G, Thomas) both spoke of the strategic importance and the necessity of Greece to British interests, and I was a little surprised that they had not sufficiently well tutored their hon. Friends so that they should not deride that argument as they did when it was put from this side.
3.0 p.m.
I want to ask one or two other small and exact questions. What sort of arms have we been giving? We ought to know. Suppose we were inquiring now into the spending of £18 million upon a bridge across the Severn. We should, I think, make sure that the bridge had reached the other side and, if not, probably we should move a reduction in the Vote. These arms must have been given to meet an exact situation, existing and prospective, as explained by technicians, and I wish the Foreign Office to tell us what sort of arms

have been given, in what sort of numbers, whether our deliveries have always been up to the advice of our technicians and of promises, explicit or implicit, made to the Greeks. And then, about maintenance, I should invite some explanation. If the hon. Gentleman looks on page 16, about the eighth line down, in small type, he will see:
…. undertook later to provide further assistance, mainly in the way of maintenance, towards the equipment of the Greek Armed Forces….
I am bound to say I am baffled by that. When I first read it I thought we guaranteed to give them certain arms and found finally that they were even harder up than we expected, largely as the result of the guerrilla which made it very difficult to get on with their economic reconstruction, and that then, finding them harder up than we expected, we agreed to give them more money for maintenance—clothes, rationing, and so on. But it does not seem to mean that, but goes on to say:
…mainly in the way of maintenance, towards the equipment of the Greek Armed Forces.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain to us what is "maintenance towards equipment," because it has me absolutely defeated. I can quite see what either of them is but I cannot see what the two are together.
This is my very last sentence. The hon. Gentleman opposite who is so anxious about direct evidence told us that the Greek Government have done nothing at all about economic reconstruction. I do not think that is an exaggeration of what he said. If he will look at HANSARD for 27th February, he will find in a speech made by the Foreign Secretary about a fortnight ago the following words:
I would not like the Committee to underestimate all that has been accomplished in Greece in the work of reconstruction. Miles of roads and railways have been constructed … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 2298.]
and so on.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is wrong.

Mr. Pickthorn: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary was wrong on this matter, but in view of the assertions and innuendos we have suffered on this subject the Foreign Office should now come out and tell us boldly and plainly as much as ever they can.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: This is a subject on which I speak with very great feeling; partly because my family has been associated with Greece ever since the time of the Greek War of Independence. In passing, I would like to correct the misapprehension of one of my hon. Friends who surprised me the other day by suggesting that I was partly Greek. In fact, I come from a philhellenic family but not a Hellenic family. A great part of my childhood was spent in Greece, and much of my war service was spent with Greeks. I am going to speak very briefly, having listened with great attention and sympathy to some of the speeches which have been made, particularly the very moving and sincere speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I want to try to put what I believe to be a strictly practical and constructive proposal. I beg my right hon. Friend to give it his attention.
I am convinced that the ordinary Greek citizen is sick and tired of the continuing civil war. He wants to be left in peace by the extremes of both sides. He is sick and tired of having his villages attacked, his houses burnt down and his families beaten up, one day by left wing bands, another day by right wing bands, and another day by police patrols. He wants to get back at last to conditions of stability. Great parts of the country, especially the North, have been living in war conditions ever since 1940—for seven long years. In parts, the liberation only meant a continuance of civil war, and it is still going on. Two of my hon. Friends have referred to the possibility of putting in power, or suggesting to the Greeks that they should put into power, a Coalition Government. There is a great deal to be said for that, but I do not believe any purely political arrangement, however produced, can solve the problems of Greece today. Greek economy, politics and security have been so broken up and smashed by the war, the civil war and the occupation, that she is unable at the present time to stand on her own feet. She cannot put her economy in order, end the civil war, or rebuild, without some outside help. We have made very sincere attempts to help her economically, and we have tried to help with advice, by Missions and in other ways, to put her back on her feet. It might have been said it would be a good thing if Greece

became a member of the British Commonwealth. I would condemn that, although some Greeks have thought, quite seriously, that it would have been in their interests, and there was sincere feeling on the subject in the country at one time. Clearly, that is not possible at the present moment. We have earned a good deal of international by our efforts to help Greece, and with our many commitments, domestic and foreign, we cannot even continue to give the help we have given up till now.
What are the alternatives? One alternative is to withdraw and let the forces from the North walk in—let Greece be absorbed, as other nations have been absorbed, into the sphere of the Soviet Union. I believe that to be a worse alternative.

Professor Savory: Hear, hear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: There is another alternative, and this has recently been brought into prominence by the speech of President Truman. It is that Greece should be taken over lock, stock and barrel by the United States, and that what some of my hon. Friends have called "American dollar imperialism" should be the power in Greece. I believe that that would be a great tragedy from our point of view, and from the point of view of the Greeks. We are faced with this dilemma, that Greece cannot stand on her own feet today. Anyone who has been in that country will have been surprised at the assertion of the Foreign Secretary that recovery is going on quickly. Whatever you may think about political conditions in Yugoslavia, when you cross the frontier by road, you cannot help but be struck by the terrible contrast. It may be that they have a totalitarian Government, but they are rebuilding their villages, roads and houses. In Greece, alas, almost nothing is being done. Then there is the shadow of international stress. Some Greeks even believe they are within hours of the outbreak of another world war. Reconstruction has not got moving, because of the uncertainty of the national and of the international situation. So far as security and politics are concerned, Greece cannot stand on her own feet. It would be a disaster if any one major Power took the country over.
I believe there is a solution to this problem, and it is this: I want Greece to become a commitment of the United


Nations as a whole. I want United Nations financial assistance, and United Nations control of that financial assistance in Greece. One of the reasons why our own efforts have been nullified is that although, as mentioned in the Estimate, part of the assistance to Greece was dependent on the agreement negotiated with the Greek Government, which provided for measures to be taken by them for reconstruction, and so on, the Anglo-Greek Financial Agreement of 1946 has, in fact, remained a dead letter. Therefore, whoever gives economic assistance to Greece, it is extremely important that, in return, the Greeks should undertake to use that assistance under proper supervision and control.
There is no hope of ending the civil war by leaving the Greek Army to fight it out with the rebels. They have been doing that for a whole year. I ask myself why we are spending £18 million in building up the Greek Army. I do not want to be controversial about this, but I am tempted to ask what is the purpose of having a Greek Army. Is it for internal stability? From that point of view, it has proved absolutely worthless. Is it to save the Greeks from invasion? Does anyone seriously believe that her tiny-Army could prevent Greece being invaded, in the event of a third world war? I think it is vitally important that the civil war there should be brought to an end, and that whatever complications there may be on the frontier should be stopped. The only way in which that can be done is by having a permanent, or semi-permanent, corps of United Nations observers established along that frontier and, if necessary, in other parts of Greece.
I beg my right hon. Friend to look into the implications of this—of Greece being not a British, American, or Russian commitment, but a United Nations commitment. I am sure that His Majesty's Government would get any Greek Government to accept that, because they know what the alternatives are. I believe that it would be the way not only to solve Greece's internal problems, but to deal with what one of the factors which is poisoning our international relations at present. If this could be put forward at the Conference of Foreign Ministers at Moscow it might be one way of relieving the acute tension that must arise from the

way in which President Truman has announced his intention to take over British commitments in Greece. In view of the obligations which we have to the Greek people, and the terrible things which have been happening since the civil war in 1944, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the question, and see what can be done.

Mr. Eden: I think that the whole House will feel that every speech which has been made in this Debate, from whatever angle, has shown a sincere desire to contribute something towards an improvement in the situation in Greece at the present time. That is the mood in which the House should approach this problem, for there is, on all sides, a feeling of true friendship for the people of Greece. There is, from us all, a warm and affectionate regard for a gay and gallant people. Certainly, they have at all times stood by us, no matter how difficult the conditions were, and we should approach this difficult subject—as I wish to do—in an attempt to provide a sympathetic and understanding view of the problems of Greece.
May I say, at the outset, without impertinence, that I was impressed by the report which was prepared by several Members of this House who recently went to Greece? That delegation was composed of Members of all parties, and they certainly set the Greeks an example in that they produced a virtually unanimous report. That, at any rate, is a very rare event in connection with Greek policy. Their conclusions were pretty near the mark. First, let me say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman). He said that the Greeks wanted a broader Government. I think his advocacy was for a Coalition. It may be that we think a Coalition would be good for Greece, but the Greeks do not happen to think that it is good for them. That is just too bad; but it has to be faced [Interruption]. I am saying that there is probably no country in the world in which it is more difficult to have a Coalition than in Greece. "Compromise" is not a Greek word. I was a little taken aback when I heard an hon. Gentleman opposite tell us just now that, two years after this Government in Greece had been elected, they ought to be looking about to broaden their basis. Please do not let the hon. Gentlemen opposite think that I am


suggesting that the Government here should follow the advice given to the Government in Greece. God forbid.

Mr. George Thomas: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to be correct. What I said was that, two years after the war, there was no reconstruction. I was not speaking of the Government.

Mr. Eden: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I, of course, withdraw. I think that we have to be careful in advising these foreign countries on what they should do. Sometimes our advice may seem a little strange in view of our own practices. An hon. Gentleman said, "Why do they want an army in Greece?" It is all very well for us to say that. Bulgaria has a very large army and there are very large forces of the Soviet Union in Bulgaria. It is not surprising, therefore, that Greece, who fought on our side in the war, should feel that she should be entitled to have an army, if Bulgaria, who fought against us, has one. Although, in terms of modern warfare and strategy, the Greek Army may not be of a size for European warfare, it is a natural approach that, with a large Russian army in Bulgaria, and with Yugoslavia with an army, they should wish to have a national army too.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: The point is that an enormous proportion of international help to Greece is being spent on this army, when almost nothing is being spent on reconstruction. The figures are 18 to one.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech. I suggest that you cannot discount the national pride of people like the Greeks, any more than you can discount the national pride of any other nation.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Do we have to pay for their national pride?

Mr. Eden: They gave a great deal to the Allied cause. If there is anything that nauseates me it is the suggestion that Bulgaria, whose behaviour was utterly treacherous throughout the war, should be allowed to have an army, without a word of protest from hon. Gentlemen opposite, while they immediately protest if Greece has an army. Nothing, in my judgment, can defend that. I have said to the chief men of the Russian State myself, and I

say it again, that their friends in Bulgaria are unworthy of the friendship of any country. How many thousands of Greeks have been slain by the Bulgarians? Never will I listen peacefully to apologies for the behaviour of the Bulgarians. Our desire to help the Greeks in their very difficult situation is based in part on their record and their loyalty to us as an Ally. There are many things in this Greek business in which I was a good deal mixed up myself, but nothing impressed me more than the attitude of the Greek population when our troops eventually withdrew. That is a memory which will be fresh with us all, always.
What about the problem of economic reconstruction, upon which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) so rightly touched? That is the heart of the whole matter. Greece has always been poor, and years of occupation have brought her to the very verge of ruin. Before the war Greece lived very largely upon her Mediterranean carrying trade but that has been virtually destroyed. She lost well over one million tons of the shipping which was the lifeblood of Greek trade before the war. We have not been able to replace that shipping, although I should have thought we might well try to help her in that respect. That might be cheaper, in the long run, even than giving this grant. Her few ports, harbours and railways were demolished when the Germans withdrew. That created a problem which it is difficult for us fully to visualise. It was a blow much more severe than it would be for us, with our many ports, harbours and roads. Greece had so few. Greece was stripped of such livestock as she had, and her harvests were confiscated. All those blows were in addition to the human casualties to which I have already referred.
Before the war, Greece had to import—I think I am right—about half her coal and nearly all her machinery and her raw materials. I shall not say anything about the elections, except that they have had the elections and that I am quite prepared to rest on the report of the Members of this House who went out there. Their government is there, elected, whether we like it or not, and we have to be careful to approve of democratic governments, even if we cannot agree with their party politics. It is a temptation which I have, as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but


it is a temptation which we have to resist. Anyhow, there they are. The problem is, how can we give them economic help. I would make a suggestion to the Government. The one prime export of Greece before the war was tobacco, but nearly 40 per cent. of the crop went to Germany. I would ask the Government to look at this question of tobacco. As I understand the position, we are giving to the Greek Government £500,000 in the shape of consumer goods and £500,000—or I think it is £2,500,000—for the cancellation of what we should have been repaid in respect of U.N.R.R.A. I make no complaint about that, but that is what the Government propose. Cannot we see whether we can do something about the tobacco?
I am told that at the moment there is a surplus tobacco crop in Greece of between 60,000 and 70,000 tons. I would ask the Minister whether he has any information on that point. My suggestion is that we should see whether we can take a large proportion of that tobacco. Before the war America took 17 per cent. of the tobacco crop, we took 8 per cent. and Germany 40 per cent. It is no secret that that 40 per cent. which was sent to Germany gave Germany a certain hold upon Greek economy. Since tobacco represents about half of what Greece can export, can we not take a large proportion of that from her? The advantages are obvious. We shall help Greece more effectively than even by this Vote perhaps—which I support—and we shall also help ourselves because we shall be expending less of our dollar resources upon tobacco. Personally, I think Greek cigarettes are rather good.
Therefore, I commend this to the Government from the Greek point of view, from our national point of view, and from the point of view of my personal taste. I ask them to consider whether something cannot be done. I know what the tobacco companies will say to the Government, because they said it to me before the war They will say that the British public do not like the taste of Greek tobacco. The British public, under the present beneficent Administration, has to put up with many things, including doubtful Derbys and uncertain test matches. In contrast to that, I think a little Greek tobacco in their cigarettes would not be altogether amiss. I conclude on this practical note. I think we would

do perhaps the best thing in present conditions not to seek to influence Greek Governments or to give them instruction about their politics, but to try to build up their economy. The best way to build up that economy is to take their tobacco and give them a chance to pay their way and live their life as a free and independent State.

3.26 p.m.

Mr. Warbey: I think the House will want to recall that this sum of £18 million that they are asked to contribute to the Greek Army represents only the culmination of a very long process of expenditure involving something over £100, million of the British taxpayers' money. I think it is the duty of the House to consider what return we are getting for that money. What benefit is the British taxpayer deriving from this very large expenditure from our very slender resources? Are we getting, as a result, a happy and prosperous Greece, a friendly Greece, and are we reinforcing and reaffirming the ancient friendship which existed between the two people? As I see it, what we have got as a result of the policy pursued during the last two years is a Greece in which not only the Left but also the Centre, and indeed practically all the democratic forces, have become more and more hostile towards us.
The only friends that remain to us in Greece today are ex-quislings, former supporters of the Metaxas dictatorship, and hangers-on of the most discredited Monarchy in Europe after the late unlamented House of Savoy. It may be said that we are doing this to carry out a debt of honour to help the Greek people. What benefit are the Greek people getting out of this vast expenditure? Is it resulting in the re-establishment of law and order in Greece, in the re-establishment of the peace and tranquility of civil liberty and the liberty of the subject?
Hon. Members opposite have referred to the alleged murders of two women in Greece. Certainly, those deaths should be investigated and we should know the real cause, but there are affairs on the other side which are even more discreditable. I take the case, for example, of the most horrible massacre that took place last November at the village of Xirovrissi, near Kikis, in Central Macedonia. That was an occasion on which 45 persons—men, women and girls—were killed, 50


were wounded, and 45 houses were burnt down. On the admission of the Greek Government, that massacre was carried out by a body of so-called nationally minded citizens. The Greek Government issued a communique on the subject in which they said that this had resulted from the attacks on Left Wing residents of this village by residents of other surrounding villages, because one of the residents of Xirovrissi had killed a nationally-minded citizen of one of the other villages. One person was killed by the Left, and 45 were killed and 50 wounded and 45 houses were burnt down by the Right. The Greek Government went on to say:
It is not known, therefore, why the Left Wing Press makes such a bother about this. These people brought these murders upon them' elves.
3.30 p.m.
That is an official statement of the Greek Government. It shows the kind of Greek Government with which we have to deal and to which we are voting this money today. These so-called "nationally minded" people were private Greek citizens armed by the Greek Army with money supplied to them by the British taxpayers. In other words, the money we have voted and are asked to vote today is being used to help carry on these private massacres in Greece. It is also helping to carry on what everybody has admitted is a civil war in Greece, a civil war which, whatever one may say about one side or the other, has certainly resulted from the fact—as was declared by all Members of the Parliamentary Delegation who went to Greece—that many Left Wing followers have had to flee to the mountains in order to escape from the persecution of the Right. That is the situation in Greece today.
Now this Greek Government is preparing, with the money we are voting them, to carry out its spring offensive against the Greek resistance movement. I ask the Minister of State if he will give us some information when he replies about the report that appears in the "News Chronicle" today from their Athens correspondent, Stephen Barber. He writes that thoughts in Greece are today taming towards the spring and towards battle. He says:
Recently, in the Athens presidency, the biggest martial conference since the end of the war sat. Service chiefs, heads of police

and gendarmerie, staff officers and Ministers assembled. Through french windows floated the scent of lilac blossoms."—
He goes on:
British Mission chiefs, ramrod Sir Charles Wickham, of the police and gendarmerie; General Rawlings, of the Army, were there too. The purpose of this conference was to decide what to do about the spring.
I want to ask the Minister of State whether in fact the British Military Mission is participating in these councils of war, whether it is advising the Greek Government and the Greek Army on the conduct of the operations against the guerrillas, and whether we are actively taking sides not only by our money and our arms but also by our advice and strategic guidance in the conduct of this civil war in Greece. Remember that this civil war is a war which has been said to be unlike any civilised or normal type of warfare. It is a warfare in which horrible private vendettas are carried out, and whatever may be said of the atrocities committed by the Left Wing, we are not being asked to provide money for arms for the Left, but money for arms for the Right—

An Hon. Member: For the Government.

Mr. Warbey: We are being asked to take sides in this civil war—

Mr. Pickthorn: Will the hon. Member permit me—

Mr. Warbey: I have not the time. We are being asked to provide arms for a Government which, with the authority of law and order and the authority of the State behind it, ought to be maintaining a standard of behaviour far above that of the rebel bands in the mountains. Yet in fact its standard of behaviour is at the least as low as the worst behaviour of the rebel bands. There was a civil war in Spain, and in 1936 when there was a Left Wing Republican Government struggling for its life against the legionaries of a rebel Fascist general, we placed an embargo on arms to that Government, and today, instead of placing an embargo on arms to the Greek Government, as we ought to be doing, we are actually voting the British taxpayer's hard-earned money in order to enable them to prosecute their war. I say it is a disgrace that we should be doing that.
This is my last word. After the last war, one of the disgraceful things, which I think we all abhorred, was the fact that, in the troubles in Ireland, we had the


"Black and Tans" carrying out certain very unpleasant operations on our behalf. But it is one thing to supply money for the purpose of arming our own "Black and Tans," and quite another to be called upon today to vote money to arm the "Black and Tans" of a foreign State. I regard that as a disgrace and a dishonour to the good name of this country. I cannot find it consistent with my conscience to vote money for such a purpose, and I hope that my hon. Friends also will not vote for it.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): No one doubts the sincerity of such speakers as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey). But it is not their sincerity that is at stake here; it is their ability to think clearly. This House is not being asked to vote money for foreign "Black and Tans." This House is not even being asked to vote money for any one Greek Government. This House is being asked to vote certain funds to meet the sterling cost of Greek Forces from 1st January of last year to 31st March this year. My hon. Friend ought to remember that, up till March of last year, this Government had no existence.

Mr. Warbey: If my right hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt him, is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State came to this House only last October and told us that this Greek Government had asked for considerable additional sums, far beyond those we had previously voted?

Mr. McNeil: Again, my hon. Friend is badly confused. It is quite true that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary came to the House in October—and this will answer one of the questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—and that he was asked if it was true that we were being requested to provide equipment for an extension of the Greek Forces to 130,000 men. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary then made it plain—and I repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Cambridge University—that we did not agree to that extension. There was an agreement under which we were carrying the costs until the end of last year. At the same time, we made available certain equipment. At the end of the year, however, when the Greek exchange position was examined, it was quite clear that the

Greek Government could not be asked to carry these sterling costs which they had promised to face, and about which the previous Greek Government had been informed. A choice was offered to us. We could force a cut down on the size of the Greek Forces; we might have faced up to continuing a larger British Force in Greece than we had planned to do, or to keeping the men we had there longer than was originally intended, or we could promise to meet the additional sterling cost. It is that additional sterling cost which this Supplementary Estimate today proposes to meet, plus the £1 million for non-military costs. It is quite clear that any Greek Government, Left or Right, must have Forces to maintain order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton asked how much benefit the British taxpayer would derive from the Greek people spending this money. The benefit is not that law and order has been established; no one can pretend that that is so. But no one can ever pretend that there has been law and order in modern Greece.

Mr. Warbey: Why spend the money?

Mr. McNeil: To try to narrow the area of public disorder. That is why the money has been spent. I was asked several detailed questions about the nature of this equipment. I must apologise to the House, as I am not in possession of that detailed information. What I had better say is that the equipment is after the fashion of British infantry equipment. I ought also to confess that we made promises about vehicles which we have not been completely able to meet. I ought also to say that the infantry equipment is not up to what we would call grade one standard, because, of course, it had to be made available from what was dispensable to us. I was also asked if the British Military Mission was taking part in these conferences of war. I did not know that there had been conferences of war.

Mr. Warbey: Does my right hon. Friend say he does not know?

Mr. McNeil: I say I did not know. I have read the "News Chronicle," as my hon. Friend has, but I cannot accept that. Although I am not in any way suggesting that the "News Chronicle" is not a reputable journal, the House of Commons does not expect me to come here and


make assertions based on the report in the "News Chronicle." If my hon. Friend wishes to put down a Question later—and he does not seem diffident about questioning me, and should not be—I will endeavour to extract the information. But, it would be nonsense for me to say anything about the newspaper report on such a matter. My hon. Friend may make comments in that way, but it is not for me to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: The Foreign Office does not know?

Mr. McNeil: The Foreign Office does not know, but the Foreign Office will find out.
Several references were made to the lack of reconstruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), in a most helpful speech, was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), in saying, "Look at this, 18 to one in favour of military expenditure, as against reconstruction expenditure." But, of course, that is not the picture at all. The degree of reconstruction in Greece is not as extensive as any of us want it to be, for two reasons. The first is because economic essentials have not been present, and, secondly, it is because there has been continued political and social disturbance. But there has been a substantial degree of reconstruction. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said earlier, it is true that roads, and to some degree railway travel, has been substantially restored. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. Within the last 12 months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Hon. Members should remember that 18 months ago there was not a single locomotive moving in Greece. We have one line fully reopened, only one line as far as I know, but that is a very big contribution.

Mr. Solley: President Truman has said that the present political chaos has made economic recovery impossible. Does my right hon. Friend disagree with that statement?

Mr. McNeil: I have said that economic reconstruction has been hampered by two factors; one, the absence of economic essentials, and two, the continued political and social disturbance. The most superficial examination has made that clear.
However, I wish to address myself to one point which was put sharply to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—this question of tobacco. Like anyone else who has ever been mildly interested in Greek politics, I was, almost the first month I was in the Foreign Office, pursuing this nightmare of "Why could not Britain buy more Greek tobacco?" I received every assistance from the appropriate Departments here represented on the Front Bench. I even got a friend to make privately a cigarette which had only two per cent. of Greek tobacco in it, and I met the prejudice to which the right hon. Gentleman referred by handing round the cigarette, and saying to people, "What do you think of this Virginian cigarette?" They said "It is a lovely cigarette." I went to the tobacco people in this country, and with the assistance of the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary, I met the Tobacco Controller, we pushed down these nicotine bulwarks, overcame all their prejudice, and the Controller himself, Mr. Maxwell, went out to Greece, and was authorised to buy ten million pounds of Greek tobacco. That offer still stands. I regret to have to inform the House and the right hon. Gentleman that, so far, the Greeks have only produced one-tenth of that tobacco. There are difficulties. Transport is one of them. Packing is another. But probably the biggest single factor is the inflationary situation. The growers will only part with such of their crop as they need cash for, and they hold on to the rest against better prices.
I doubt very much, though I am being drawn rather beyond my brief, whether this inflationary situation will be held until there is, as well as an improvement in the economic situation, a substantial improvement in the political situation. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff spoke with restraint, and obviously with emotion, but I suggest once more, that he did not see both sides of the picture either. I was questioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge University about these two murders. I cannot give him details—

Mr. Pickthorn: We were promised them.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry, but I cannot give him details, not because I have not looked into this matter but because our investigations are not completed. I say firmly that he was on sound ground when


he referred to one fact. It is undoubtedly beyond dispute that the daughter of the second Deputy was taken outside the village where the fight had occurred and shot—an absolutely and completely unjustifiable situation. But do not let us think it ends there. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton referred to a massacre committed by Rightists which is undoubtedly beyond dispute. My hon. Friend is correct in that picture. He read a reference from a newspaper. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff is now quite an authority on Greek newspapers, but any hon. Member who has any acquaintance with the situation knows that if one wants to quote any opinion to support Right, Left, Centre and non-starters, one can get it from a Greek newspaper, so that my hon. Friend—

Mr. Warbey: I am sorry to interrupt again, but it was not from a Greek newspaper but from a Greek Government communiqué.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. The hon. Member quoted part of a Greek Government communiqué extracted by a newspaper which wanted to extract that part.

Mr. Warbey: I did not rely on a newspaper at all.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member quoted part of a Government communiqué from a Greek newspaper, but the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that what we all want to see is this situation resolved. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said, in referring to our particular experience with a coalition, that the hardest thing to form in Greece is a coalition. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's life is going to be utterly ruined because the Derby is to be held on a Saturday and the Test Match postponed, but even those events could scarcely produce an extensive coalition in Greece. I have had some little experience in attempting to form a coalition in Greece. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why should we?"] However, I hope that some of the advice given today may be heeded, particularly outside, and I hope some of the advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick about the activities of the United Nations will be listened to. Although there are many difficulties, there is great weight in

what he said, and His Majesty's Government hope that the development of the Economic Commission for Europe may lead us towards that kind of activity.
I should like to say one further word before I leave the Estimate, and that is in relation to our Forces here, which are strictly not covered by the Estimate but are complementary to it. One of the things in which I find great pleasure is that the opinion of the ordinary Greek pers6n is much more likely to be formed by his acquaintance with the British soldiers who have been there than with the speeches made in this House. That is not a criticism of the House, it is rather a criticism of the Greek newspapers. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Greek girls?"] I am glad to be informed that the Greek girls are quite understanding. There has not been one single untoward incident in the relationships between these men and the Greek population, at a time when trouble has been present and life has been exceedingly difficult. I was extremely glad that our Parliamentary colleagues, in returning their report, made particular mention of the exemplary part played by the British Forces in Greece.
Perhaps I should say one other thing. The hon. Member for Luton confined his remarks to Greek Governments, but we should occasionally think of the ordinary Greek people, of the fishermen, the shepherds and the peasants of Greece. This £18 million has been spent for their benefit. It is quite true, as hon. Gentlemen on this side have said so often, and as the hon. Member for Central Cardiff has said again today, that there are processes taking place in Greece under this Government, which have taken place under previous Governments, but which His Majesty's Government would never condone, such as the removal of 500 people without trial. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested that we should withhold the money, but if we did what guarantee is there that would stop? What guarantee is there that it would not extend?

Mr. Gallacher: The Government has not got the support of the people.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), with that gross oversimplification which we hear over and over again, says the Government has not


the support of the people. What Government in Greece has ever commanded that support?

Mr. Gallacher: I said, we are continually told that this Government has the support of the people; if it had the support of the people, a guerrilla movement could not live.

Mr. McNeil: This Government has not the support of the people, because the hon. Gentleman, along with other misguided people, last March spent his time urging a section of the people not to take part in the elections. What I was going to say was this. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Cardiff is wrong in saying that Liberals could only meet him after dark. I am sure he is wrong. There are Liberals in the Government.

Mr. G. Thomas: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but are there any supporters of Mr. Sophoulis, who is a Liberal leader in that country?

Mr. McNeil: No, but I believe there are five Liberal parties in this country; there are many more in Greece.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Liberal ex-Cabinet Minister informed me that although he was safe in Athens, if he went outside he would be shot? He was a Liberal ex-Cabinet Minister.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps in my rather hurried remark about the Liberal Party I did a great injustice to the hon. Lady opposite, which I should never want to do. The bulk of Greek opinion is of a Liberal type. The bulk of the people are outside the disorder which has overtaken the country, and it is for the benefit of those people that this Supplementary Estimate has been spent. [Interruption.] Yes, for the benefit of the ordinary people, whose necessity is being met by the Supplementary Estimate. There have been injustices, of course we know there have been injustices, but that does not mean that the whole of Greece has been consumed in disorder Much more of it has been in disorder than any person would attempt to justify, much more than any of us like to see, but normal life has been possible for many, indeed, for the great majority, and Greece is still a recognisable State

with a Government, and with a force, and it is for that reason, and for the Greek people, that this Estimate is presented today, and I hope the House will support it.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Could my right hon. Friend say a word about the Possibility of an international commission to supervise the Greek frontier?

Mr. McNeil: There are many points I would have liked to touch upon, but I need only say that His Majesty's Government are most anxious that the United Nations Commission which is there should make some recommendations of a permanent or semi-permanent kind. Such a recommendation would have the support of His Majesty's Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATIONAL TEXTBOOKS (SHORTAGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Speaker: May I remind hon. Members that at half-past four a reception is being held in the Royal Gallery by the Lord Chancellor and myself to the Soviet Delegation?

3.58 p.m.

Mrs. Nichol: My purpose in rising on the Adjournment Motion is to draw the attention of the House to the shortage of educational textbooks. A considerable time has elapsed since I had an urge to raise this matter on the Adjournment but, unlike good wine, it has not improved with keeping. On the contrary, the position has grown a great deal worse. The daily pile of paper in the wastepaper baskets in this House is a constant testimony to the amount of paper which is available for what some, of us think to be very- questionable purposes—a good deal of propaganda, advertising, and so on. We know also that there is a steady stream of quite worthless reading matter available in bookshops and on bookstalls, and, as was revealed in a recent Debate in this House, a vast amount of paper is devoted to football pools and the like. All this makes the position of this paper shortage for educational textbooks extremely puzzling.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mrs. Nichol: The situation regarding the reprinting of standard textbooks is extremely serious because it is hampering the work of teachers, tutors, and, of course, students as well. Teaching in the schools is particularly affected, and in the secondary and grammar schools where the classes have to be larger than the desired number of 30 the shortage of even hall a dozen textbooks throws serious work completely out of gear. Put simply, the position is this. In prewar years the publishers kept a reserve tank full, and during the war, and especially after the raids upon the publishing area of Paternoster Row, where many millions of books were destroyed, this great reserve vanished. Since then, books which are printed fill only the bottom of the tank and are immediately used up by overdue orders.
Again, during the war, evacuation and the occupation of school premises by other organisations such as the N.F.S. and similar bodies, led to the loss of literally scores of thousands of books. I do not know the exact figure but it is probably even hundreds of thousands. The result is that those textbooks which were lost then are having to be replaced now, and the books which are in use are dilapidated and over-used, and in happier times many of them would have been discarded long since. The quota on which the country schools could manage during the war, is of course, no longer adequate.
Further, the return of men and women from the Forces, the overcrowding in the colleges and universities, and the emergency training scheme have all given a great impetus to the demand for advanced textbooks. Then, in April of this year, through the raising of the school leaving age, we are to retain another 500,000 children in our schools, all of which adds to the already very heavy demand for books. In addition there are evening schools and extra-mural work. A headmaster told me only this morning that in his school there is a diploma course in engineering going on, and that it can only continue because they borrow the mathematical books from his day school.
The position is really hopeless. At the beginning of the war the educational institutions managed on the reserve of hooks which was built up by the publishers, and that alone made it possible for work to continue, although the publishers were cut to 60 per cent. of their basic ration of paper. That ration was based on the reference year of 1939. That was a bad year, because of the disturbed state of the country after Munich, which had discouraged publishing. By 1941. that 60 per cent. had been reduced to 37½ per cent.
As far back as 4th November, 1943, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who was then President of the Board of Education, admitted that the shortage of books was hampering the schools, and stated that as the books wore out, the difficulties would increase. That was a very guarded under-statement, because even at that moment 5,000 educational books had gone out of print. The number increased greatly as the war continued. The percentage of paper allocated to the publishers was allowed to increase slowly. By 1945, it was still only 50 per cent. of the 1939 quota. In the year which has ended, the percentage reached the figure of 80, with an extra 10 per cent. for exports. This would appear to make the publishers perfectly happy, and so it would, if that precious tank was full. The tank is not full, and because of that, the publishers are having a bad time.
The economies which can be practised with certain types of literature cannot be practised with educational books, because most of them are printed from plates. Types cannot easily be altered, and the margins never were generous. Nor can savings be made by substitutes. As the publishers put it, if 70 copies of "Smith's" arithmetic are in use, and 30 extra copies are required, it is not much help to send 30 copies of "Brown's" arithmetic. What it means is that a 100 copies of someone else's has to be substituted, and this is a very wasteful method. It is much more economical to keep "Smith's" arithmetic in print. The publishers are at their wits end to know how to keep these good textbooks in print, and they have been driven to all sorts of uneconomic methods, giving extra work to printers and binders, in order to keep going. One educational publisher stated that he was short of 50 tons of paper for


his reprint requirements. Where can he get it? It may be said from the pool, but it depends on how many applications are already in. Even if he is successful, there is a time-lag of nine months before the textbooks can be published. The pool has been most valuable. I have consulted two or three publishers since I had in mind raising this matter on the Adjournment, and they are extremely appreciative of that piece of machinery, which helps to keep things ticking over. They say, without the pool, the position would have been desperate in the extreme.
I now wish to deal with the matter from the point of view of the head of a school. Miss Smith sends in her order. The publisher says, "Reprinting—no date." If it is binding—not merely a reprinting—one of the large educational suppliers may get an order accepted. But Miss Smith's order is at the bottom of the list, and may remain there until the end of the school financial year, so that she misses that reprint altogether. The position regarding set books for examinations is simply grotesque, and we are endangering our whole educational system. I know headmasters who are receiving textbooks for examinations after the examinations are over. One headmaster told me, this morning, that "Julius Caesar" was the set book for an examination taking place next July, that he had ordered a certain edition of this work last July, but had not got it yet. He said that he was managing with a very poor edition which he would have discarded, in normal circumstances, long ago.

Mr. Guy: Is my hon. Friend referring to one special area, or is this general?

Mrs. Nichol: I am referring, not only to schools in my constituency, but to schools all over the country. I am complaining about a paper shortage which is hampering the work of universities, schools and educational institutions of all kinds. Publishers get a quota of paper Those publishing newspapers, magazines and catalogues get their quota. During the war, many got a great deal more than they needed, or probably do so today. What becomes of all that extra paper that some publishers do not require? I can only suggest that it probably finds its way on to the black market. Any surplus paper should have been returned

to the paper reserve. This should have been enforced by Government authority. Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to find out from schools and important educational suppliers which books are in the greatest demand, and in the shortest supply, and that a special paper ration be granted to meet the need? Much ephemeral literature is printed on good paper, sometimes on much better paper than that which is used for lasting works. We all see the glossy magazines and the two colour printing which, I believe, is printed on what is called callendered paper and is an expensive process. No one going on a railway journey, and choosing newspapers, etc., at a bookstall, can fail to be confronted with a mass of really worthless literature, and much of it printed on good paper.
It must be remembered that the demand for textbooks and standard works in the upper forms of schools has grown tremendously in recent years, and that the 1939 standard no longer exists. If educational publishers are to build up the reserves they used to have their quota must be, not 60 per cent. of the 1939 standard, but more than 100 per cent. The 1939 figure was based on the amount of paper needed to maintain stocks, not to replace them. It is this great replacement that must be undertaken. I have no hesitation in asking the Minister of Education to do this, because I am sure that he realises its tremendous importance. Could a method be devised for diverting more paper to the pool for educational purposes, or increasing the percentage to the educational, technical, scientific, professional and university publishers?
Can the Minister give some information about the relative allocation of paper to the main users? I had the figures for 1944; as they are not recent their chief value would be to show that educational books, as usual, come at the bottom of the list. I am perhaps a little cynical about the way in which education has been treated in the past. The allocation in 1944 was: Newspapers, 250,000 tons. I am told that that paper does not affect educational books, and I am prepared to count that out; His Majesty's Stationery Office, 100,000 tons; periodicals, 55,000 tons; War Office, 25,000 tons; and books, including educational books, are at the bottom with 22,000 tons. They are not


recent figures, and if they could be brought up to date, I should appreciate it.
Owing to the present emergency and the need for a reduction of printing and binding, I suggest that the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour should give consideration to priority in labour power and materials to the printers and binders of educational textbooks. It is not a question to be settled in consultation with the Publishers' Association, because it would place them in a very invidious position. It is a problem which should be settled on national grounds and not on vested interests. In case hon. Members may think that I am exaggerating this shortage, may I read a paragraph of a letter which came into my possession, written by a gentleman connected with one of the most important educational publishing houses in the country:
There is, in my opinion, going to be a serious crisis this year, far worse than anything yet felt, and there cannot, now, be any improvement in 1948. Unless something is done to give priority to essential books, there will actually be at least 50 per cent. less schoolbooks flowing out from the publishers' warehouses in 1947–48 than there were during 1946–47. And that at the very moment when 500,000 more children are being retained at school.
Therefore, may I ask that the decision on licences be reviewed? The recent increase in licences for periodicals, many of them printed on glossy paper, has worsened the position to such an extent that the quota for educational publishers cannot always be honoured. I know that there is the great difficulty of labour, and a tremendous number of workers have not returned to the printing trade. In a recent White Paper on economic relations between employers and employed, we were told that 90,000 workers have not returned to the printing trade—that is, there are 90,000 fewer than in 1939. It is no use having the paper, if we cannot get the labour; this has to be a co-ordinated affair.
May we know what has happened to the hundreds of thousands of educational books which the Services used in connection with an extremely useful and valuable educational scheme? Cannot the shelves be combed for the thousands of books that may be there, and can they be put into use? I feel that we are living in an age when new ideas should count for everything—new ideas in all phases of

life. We have to meet them with a challenge, and young people—medical students, teachers, architects, engineers and agriculturists—all of whom are studying for their jobs, must have the books which are as necessary to them as food is to nourish their bodies. For tutors and teachers, these books are the very tools of their trade. They can no more work without them than a bricklayer can work without bricks and trowels. I hope that we shall not hold up the stream of educational books; we cannot afford to do it. I therefore urge that the Government should look into the matter immediately with a view to rectifying the great and serious shortage in educational textbooks.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I intervene for a moment to support everything that the hon. Lady has said, and to congratulate her upon having raised this matter, which is of great social and educational importance. I speak as a former member of the education committee of the London County Council and would stress the fact that at the present moment the shortage of educational textbooks in London alone exceeds one million. It really does not make sense to raise the school leaving age to 15 unless the Government also make arrangements to increase the supply not only of educational textbooks, but also of the classics of English literature, so many of which are out of print.
Apart from the difficulty of obtaining educational textbooks, it is insufficiently appreciated how difficult it is to buy many of the great English classics. A friend of mine who tried to buy an English classic the other day, tells me that one cannot now get a copy of any of the following books: "Vanity Fair" or "Esmond", by Thackeray, "Tess of the D'Urbervilles", by Thomas Hardy, "Jane Eyre", by Charlotte Brontë, "Tom Jones", by Fielding, "Tristram Shandy", by Sterne, "The Mill on the Floss", by George Eliot, to mention only a few.

Mrs. Nichol: And "Alice in Wonderland".

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the dearth of good literature for the reading public today, I hope that the Minister will make arrangements for a greater supply of paper, in order that educational textbooks and English classics may once more be available in adequate numbers.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The subject which the hon. Lady has raised this afternoon is of very great importance. It is one about which we are all concerned. The schools have been even worse off than the universities in this matter, and from the brief experience I had of university teaching just before I came here, I can testify that the universities have been pretty badly hit. I certainly found it was so in the field of economic textbooks—

Mrs. Florence Paton: That is true also of the primary schools.

Mr. Wilson: From inquiries I have been able to make, it is true to say that though paper has undoubtedly been in shorter supply than we should like it to be, paper has not been the only or the chief difficulty. It is partly a question of labour and, to a very considerable extent, to a shortage of machinery and equipment, especially on the bookbinding side. Paper is far from being easy to supply, and the trouble of recent weeks will make the situation rather worse, I am afraid. The hon. Lady quoted evidence she has received on the subject of growing difficulty of paper supply and she suggested that I should review the arrangements for priority, to see whether we could, in some way, get more paper allocated to the purposes to which she referred. We shall give very careful consideration to the proposals she made, in view of the difficulties. In that connection I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has noted the suggestions which the hon. Lady made about finding out which particular books are in shortest supply, in order to see what special action can be taken to improve the position.

Mr. Cove: What about textbooks for examinations?

Mr. Wilson: I have no doubt that will be one of the things which my hon. Friend will look into. He tells me that, as far as possible, examiners are trying to choose books which they know to be in less difficult supply than others. I hope that they will continue to do that.

Mr. Cove: There is some co-operation about that? I know that a lot of students have difficulty in grammar schools and universities where books are set for examinations. I know a number of cases

where students cannot get the books which are set for an examination. It seems to me to be an absolutely absurd situation.

Mr. Wilson: I think that point was made with great emphasis by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol). In regard to the remarks about books in the Services, I can say that they have been pretty well combed through. Of course, it is possible to have another look at it, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education tells me that, already, a large number of books have been sent from the Services to the emergency training colleges where they are desperately needed. I have the figures about allocations, for which the hon. Lady asked, but it might be convenient if I made them available in another way, and if I now deal with the specific points which she raised.
Paper is allocated to established book publishers on the basis of prewar consumption. The percentage, which was 37½ per cent. at the worst period of the war, is now 80 per cent. That is more than double the 1945 quota. By such economies as they can make in setting up the books, the publishers are now producing more books from the same quantity of paper. The hon. Lady referred to the special reserve of paper held for books of particular importance, and she paid some tribute to the work that has been done. There were 1,210 applications for paper for educational books and, as a matter of fact, 953, that is practically 80 per cent. of these, were granted. I am sure that the books which are in particularly difficult supply are best dealt with in this way.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Are they not specialist books?

Mr. Wilson: No, not entirely.

Mr. Lindsay: Ordinary school books?

Mr. Wilson: Yes. Generally, they are with particular reference to the sixth form and universities, and specially they are technical books. Of course, there have been attempts to get books from ex-students by advertising and, in addition, the Government have granted an open licence for the free import of books from other countries. In many cases that does not help to deal with the particular problem of set books, especially where


examiners have the habit of specifying particular editions with notes and cribs attached to them. As I think my hon. Friend was stressing, the problem is not so much the fact that few books are being printed now, but that stocks have fallen to such a low level.

Mrs. Nichol: And paper is used for less worthy purposes.

Mr. Wilson: I think my hon. Friend will realise the extreme difficulty, if paper is allocated for books, of attempting to impose a censorship as between the worthiness and the relative unworthiness of the books that are printed. It would be extremely difficult to do that, and it would be better to concentrate on the Moberley pool to which reference has been made.
I now turn from the question of paper—which I am sure has not been the principal difficulty—to the question of labour. The manpower in the publishing and printing trades now stands at about 81 per cent. of its prewar strength. It is growing, and it has grown very rapidly during the last 18 months or so. Of course, as I said, we are not yet back to the prewar figure.
In regard to machinery, this has been one of our biggest difficulties. Five thousand machines were destroyed during the war, and such machinery as is left has suffered six more years of wear and tear, just as the books have suffered wear and tear during this period. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that some of the hooks which we had at elementary and secondary schools in Yorkshire before the war were pretty dilapidated, and at that time there were no difficulties about printing. At present, the situation for the delivery of home-produced printing equipment is extremely difficult. Delivery dates are something like 18 months to two and a half years from the date of order. That is chiefly due to the lack of casting and foundry equip-

ment. The same is true of the machinery which we have to import from abroad. We have had to import a considerable amount of machinery and we are experiencing great difficulty. The chief difficulty is found in the book binding section, even more than in the printing section. I am afraid that there is not time to discuss our difficulties there. We recognise the difficulties to which the hon. Member for North Bradford has referred. It is a problem that can only be solved over a considerable period of time. I do not think, in view of recent troubles, that we can hold out great hope that there will be more paper. Anything that may be done, by looking into the question of priorities, I can assure her will be done. I am quite sure that the Minister of Education will be glad to co-operate in any way.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: We have heard a very interesting speech and we are grateful to the hon. Lady who raised this question. I have been on deputations in regard to this matter, and I think we expect from this Government in particular a little more co-operation between the Minister of Education, the Minister of Labour and whoever is responsible at the Board of Trade. May I make this last appeal to my hon. Friend, who I know is just as anxious as we are to leave no stone unturned—

It being Half-past Four o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.